{"word_count": 5658, "character_count": 37749}
by&#160;Anthony Pecqueux + Nicolas TixierThis conference aims at measuring some of the CRESSON studies against, on the one hand, theories of attention and, on the other hand, a pragmatist approach on social life.Many of us complain about the noise we endure in our everyday life, especially in town: noise from our neighbours, traffic, construction sites, subway, etc. Whether it is at home, underground or on the surface, we are constantly enveloped – even harassed – by sounds, which we more or less easily get used to, since it is very difficult to literally close our ears to them. Therefore, and at least since the first industrial revolution, in cities and more specifically in metropoles, we have witnessed a multiplication of sound sources. It goes hand in hand with the lowering of the sound tolerance threshold, which can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively with regular surveys on these questions, on their place on the political agenda against urban noise, the recent addition (2003) of a “crime of sound aggression” in the French Penal Code, etc.ListenTranslation : Hello, welcome.Sociologist, anthropologist forthe CNRSBefore tackling the notion ofsound (for about an hour), he will speak about something else: the governmentdecided to start “Campus France” – the academic fees for students out of Europeare going to skyrocket.Petition against that decision.They’re against it. Denial of right to access education, enhancesocial/financial gaps, selection of very rich students to send them to privateschools. Damage to the humanities. It could also damage research, and threatensociology, geography and history programs. They support the actions currentlycarried out by the students.The Minister announced thatthey will talk about it, but nothing is going to change. Open debate if youwant? Website: research log book onthe different petitions against “Bienvenue en France”.ConferenceHark theme: title hard totranslate – AttenSiON (JuL proposed AttenSOUND)Idea to follow almost literallythe concept of Hark – listen carefullyAs a sociologist, manyquestions related to “listening carefully”: who, what, when, how? A lot todiscuss from that point.Many of us complain about thenoise we endure in our everyday life, especially in town: neighbours, traffic,construction site, subway… Whether it’s at home, underground or on the surface,we are constantly enveloped – even harassed – by sounds. The sound of things, therustle of the cityIt is very hard to compare cities from the past and cities from ourcontemporary time. Multiplication of sources of sound. Frequent surveys Studies on sound nuisances Between inconvenience and necessityHowever, it does not seem very desirable to get to the point of asilent city, or at least devoid of its sounds, where only the “good sounds”would remain, like the birds singing. According to Schafer’s terminology, thisis the division between lo-fi and hi-fi sounds (make lo-fi disappear and preferhi-fi), which are preferably audible in the countryside. Schafer: Canadian composer and research. He coined the notion/termof “soundscape”. Many CRESSON works built themselves in opposition to thisconcept. “What is good to hear?” We can talk about that later.A city like that would force us indeed to revise many of ourordinary behaviour patterns, routines and habits (in terms of action,displacement, coordination, etc.). To support the observation of a necessaryinconvenience, less provocative that it seems: the sounds coming from motorisedvehicles are most often defined as noise (disturbance), and as such, they arecountered by public policies. + honking sounds, etc.However, electric vehicles could bring about a more silent solution,and it is this silence that is now condemned as a potential danger for pedestrians. The main car manufacturers arecurrently looking for sound, even musical, solutions so that they can makenoise/sounds again: some with the IRCAM (Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics/Music), some withComposer Ryuichi Sakamoto, some using the futuristic sound effects from Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), oreven by recreating through speakers the sound of a petrol engine, etc. The same problem of “dangeroussilence” arises, to a lesser degree, with cyclists. To grasp that notion, oneonly needs to ride behind a pedestrian to see their surprise when they realisethat you are here, often at the last minute (when the faint sounds you aremaking are close enough to be perceived over the urban continuum). + motorisedscooters, they can arrive really fast and it gets even worse than on a bike(which is slower).The struggle of currentpolicies in terms of urban displacement (juggling between necessarysustainability, which noise disturbance is a part of, and the dangers thatthese new silent beings represent for urban coordination) highlights moregenerally an obvious paradox onurban sounds. On the one hand, there is thelowering of sound tolerance; on the other hand, the inability to live or even imagine a silent city, as if that couldno longer qualify as a city. Instead of seeing it as a paradox, and that’s theCRESSON’s position, we choose here to use it as a starting point and a way toreveal the richness of a statement focused on the sounds of the city. Its interest lies in thisin-between that can sometimes be confusing, between inconvenience and necessityof sounds, between diverging, even conflicting, definitions of the same (typesof) sounds: depending on who producesthem, the moments and the places where they are produced, etc.Indeed, the common points of contemporary urban dynamics (more andmore noise, which annoys us more and more, but without which we can live lessand less as they are intrinsic to our urban culture) showcase the city as a soundscape; moreprecisely, as a territory composed of allour sounding activities. We can talk about that difference later. In short, analogy with an eminent art historian (on Italian art)à similar to the way an Italian individual from the 15thcentury could appreciate, even order, a painting depending on a number ofparameters from his everyday and religious life – in particular his commerciallife, to evaluate quantities and volumes of goods in barrels or bags (or othercontainers for transportation and trade) – and thus acquire a “moral eye” to judge the painting of the Quattrocento, a citizen from the 21stcentury is used to move according to/within a sound environment, and learnedsomething close to a “moral ear” of the city to adjust their everyday actions.For example, they would probably not walk in the same way if their ears werenot able to warn them of changes and events around them. Works on hearingdisabilities can confirm this statement. In the city, the ears are not only an organ to warn and alert. They are also moral, given that they cannot not assess some prominent sounds(within the sound continuum) that are presented to them. Dimension ofevaluation of the sound/noise. “Noise” is a first moralassessment about what is neutralised as “sound”;moral evaluation that could be opposed to characterizations like “music” or“musicality” (positive), which couldthen lead to definite judgments like “sound pollution/disturbance” (negative). As often, it is useful touse ordinary language, our ownmanners of speaking, as recommended by John Austin. Therefore, we useexpressions like “shush, I hear noise”instead of “shush, I hear sounds”, since it happens in contexts where the sounds are suspicious, should notcome from such place (“… it’s comingfrom upstairs but we’re all downstairs”) or at this moment (“… but the children are asleep”).We might come back to this on Wednesday. Question of the term of“sound” – idea of “sound studies.” In French, we rarely/almost never use theword “sound” (except “I have some good sound”). It’s not a natural way toexpress yourself to talk about sound. We use other words.Sound in English is more “ordinary” than in French. Interesting to talk about “sound studies” – studies on professionalcontexts/milieus/environments. A division of “science studies” at the origin.They worked on professional environments – people from the radio, working on sound.The sound of activitiesA recent example represents well the social and moral nature of thissemantic conflict. In Germany, acertain number of citizens have brought forth the “Law of May 14, 1990 on the protection against harmful effects on theenvironment produced by air, noise, vibration pollutions and similar phenomena”(big “green” law) (Bunder-Immissionsschutzgesetz) to prove in front of courts, with proof from sound level meters,that the residents of nurseries were producing noise that was harmful for them;for their peace of mind, and even for the value of their property. Many judgments were declared, the nurseries had to pay a lot, theywere imposed the erection of noise-reduction barriers, and sometimes leading tothe closing of some nurseries after many trials. These convictions are only theresult of the quantitative characterof the law: such quantity of noise,measured with sound level meters, automatically implies a conviction. Theyare also in part due to the Germanmindset: noise is defined in an absoluteway, as opposed to the French law, which qualifies it relatively to the global soundscape. Therefore, in France, the same sound value could be defined as“noise” in a residential neighbourhood, but not on a boulevard with a lot oftraffic, which would not happen in Germany. In France, it’s relative and inGermany, it’s absolute. Following the multiplication of complaints and convictions againstthe nurseries, especially in a context where the birth rate has been concerningfor years, the German public policies have had to adjust themselves. Forexample, in 2010, Berlin enacted a locallaw “tolerating” the sounds made by children, as a sign of their “development”. Recently (June 2011), thefederal government adopted a decree that modifies the law from 1990. It states that the sounds/noise made bychildren is socially acceptable, regardless of their decibel levels, to thepoint of promoting them to the rank of “livingmusic of the future”. As a result, it forbids anyone to file a lawsuitagainst them. Good news. The semantic journey is realised: from nuisance tomusic, via noise and rarely via sound as such.In this example, the entire semantic journey is realised: fromdisturbance to music, via noise – but rarely via “sounds”. This is the reason why the name given to this issue favours thedescriptive and already evaluative category (“noise”), rather than its moreobjective equivalent (“sounds”). In the everyday city, where we live our life,it does not appear that the delight for sounds is a natural, usual attitude. Moreover, if we are there constantly exposed to noise and endure it,we also produce it as much, directly or not – each urban dweller is, in a way, noise for another (the origin or sourceof noise for someone else). In short, “noise”would refer to a “social sound”, as apprehended by social agents who areexposed to it, whether it warns or disturbs them, or that they are looking for it. “Noise” would thus reveal a sound at the heart of urbanlife, and potentially at the heart of its conflict, just like it is with thehistory of music, at least since Luigi Russolo and his Art of Noises, which broadens in 1913 the definition of music toall the sounds and noises possible, up to the New York rappers with PublicEnemy and their manifesto-song “Bring the noise!” in 1987.These introductory remarks aim at showing that, in this perspective,sounds are not understood in themselvesor for themselves (based on the relative scarcity of studies centred aroundthe sound dimension of social life – compared to the visual one). Schafer, atthe beginning of CRESSON, in those pioneer moments, these points must have beenmentioned (scarcity), but nowadays, we cannot stay on that statement. We needto study other aspects.It is here more about sounds with/amongstother sensory invitations, as they represent a relevant access point to analyse urban mutations, and some transformationsin the urban social connection. Jean-Paul Thibaud might talk to you about thison Wednesday, especially related to ambiances. Broadening of the interest tothe notion of Ambiance.It relates both to basic coordination and more extraordinary ones(following events, even sound conflicts), and to the definitions of the citybased on its sensory ambiances. In this context, if the analysis of soundemissions is heuristic, it isbecause they refer to activities oreffects in connection to them(especially if we agree on the “event nature of sounds”). We’ll talk more aboutthat “event nature” later – epistemological implications.Therefore, sounds immerse us in the city in motion, in action, in the city of urban dwellers betweenone another, in their activities and their interactions. In a word, the mainargument is to focus, based on thesounds, less on the “sound landscape”/soundscape itself and more on the“landscape of activities”/taskscape they grant access to. Against soundscape – article available online (strong argumentsagainst that notion) Taskscape, cf.Laure Brayer (Cresson)Such a work programme involves the reproduction, as finely aspossible, social agents’ urban experiences, by paying special attention totheir perceptual activities (mainly auditory) and sensory expositions (mainlysound related), and their social consequences. The consequences appear as effects of the experiences, capable ofaction on the agents, as well as on the urban territories. Thus we can question the “passability”to sounds (and more broadly to sensoryinvitations) – term that implies how we are affected by a set of elements,not to include them in the study (as a theme among others), but to try tounderstand how they base/inform our urban cultures, our uses of urban publicspaces, in summary our societal behaviour, at the elemental and routine level (everyday sounds), at the extraordinarylevel (sensory mobilisations), or atthe more general level of definition of the city (sensory ambiances).Everyday soundsWithin this general statement on urban sounds, a first approachrevolves around sounds, in the way they represent important elements of everyday life in the city:they punctuate our activities to the point where they have a part in makingthem possible, they regulate or ensure others, etc. The theme of thearticulation of sounds according to the pace of urban life shows that at an elementary, routine-like, almost invisiblelevel, sounds represent a major point in urban and social coordination. It is even more visible with the example of the honk, as the firstcoordination regulator between drivers,or between drivers and pedestrians. On the contrary, as we mentioned, thecyclists or electric cars’ silence makes this coordination uncertain and potentially dangerous.Sensory mobilisationsCf. German example from earlier.If sounds already represent a challenge for urban coordination onthe elementary scale, it only becomes more pregnant at the “extraordinary”level, during events, for example inthe case of sound disturbances: conflicts between neighbours oftenhappen because of the noise. Sounds(just like smells) go through walls,which completely disputes the demarcationbetween private and public space, or, more specifically, it reveals its porosity in a blunt way. This is why,when Erving Goffman works on the invasionof personal space in public, he includes “sound interferences” in the different territorial offences.Examples of sound provocations are interesting to study, since they are oftenmore complex than what seems at first. Let’s see the example that has been developed in the last few years:using mobile phones for music withoutearphones, via the built-in speaker. These public listening parties, often taking place in publictransportation by groups of young men at fullvolume, are to be studied in parallel with the use of ghettoblasters in the1970s and 1980s (the big boombox on the shoulder that used to spit music andused a lot of batteries). They thus create real territorialoffences for the people who are exposed to them, to the point of creatinglocal “urbanity conflict”. However,the same practice in another setting (for example urban lawns on a beautifulday) does not endure the same socialpenalty, and can even be seen as a positivesign of young sociability. This turnabout can be explained in differentways: the noise is no longer confined to the train, it spreads into space andvolume; the dwellers of these spaces are no longer forced to endure theproximity entailed by public transportation; lastly, the supposed socialorigins of these practitioners is also not the same (in short: “students” versus “youth from pauperised neighbourhoods”).Ad for Fnac (online): 5/6people waiting for the bus. Rap music is coming closer, everyone turns to theyoung Black boy, but actually it’s the old white man receiving a call. Such an example addresses several important dimensions of sounds insociety. It shows how social and spatial data interact in a determining wayin the emergence of noise disturbances, even sensory mobilisations. It alsodemonstrates that the “sound” qualification is only one possible way todescribe these sounds: the positive way, as a sign of sociability, is alwayspossible, like Jean-François Augoyard reminded. Sociability to be heard. This afternoon will be on another topic.Here, the sound territorialisation dimension clearly appears, aswell as the possible interferences with other territories: other examplesinvolve sensory mobilisations: it is against the law to smoke in bars, which leads to phatic conversations betweenstrangers in front of establishments (pleasant discussions betweensmokers), but also triggers the inhabitants’ annoyance when it happens at odd hours. Entertainment shows (musical or sport) often creates the pleasure of making noise together,which is only rarely shared by the local inhabitants, etc. Interesting to have the position of symmetry – to adopt differentpoints of view to understand the same phenomenon.We can also consider the sensory mobilisations that can arise fromthis principle of sound symmetry in the city.Sensory ambiancesTherefore, we understand that the sound dimension of urban life, asan issue of ordinary, elementary coordination, as well as regarding conflicts,even sensory mobilisations, largely contributes to the definition of the city: inquiet or loud, lively (at night) or residential neighbourhoods, etc. Thesedefinitions go beyond the sound dimension to point more broadly at the sensory qualities of the city.From that arises the question of sharing the space that is the city (which implicitly crosses theprevious two parts: how to createconflict or to get involved with others without sharing?). Indeed, addressing ambiances requires sharing and a collectiveagreement on the sensory qualities of the city. This allows to remind,regarding quick analyses, that the urban public space is not only composed of an addition of private, airtight spheres. Inessence, we keep sharing the same sensory space, even if we all take up aparticular space that can modify our perspective.Moreover, addressing ambiance requires articulating severalquestions, such as that of actualised perceptions (often via linguisticreports), practices, and spaces in which the practices and perceptions areundertaken.An example:Coming back to an epistemological stake that is fundamental. We needan epistemological position in a research work. Concrete example on that.“Event” nature of sounds: from two philosophers (Philosophy of sound). The aim was toestablish the even nature of sounds. The soundsA bias: sounds andaffordances of eventsIn this general context, I tried to focus on sound because of one ofits specificities. Indeed, Roberto Casati and Jérôme Dokic established the“event nature of sounds”, which is different from the visual perception of“qualities” (forms and colours): sounds, “contrary to colours or forms, areusually perceived and recognised as events and have a constitutive dynamic aspect” (Casatiand Dokic, 1993, p.6). They explain this ontological different (events versus qualities) as follows:“Even if the object is passive,it remains coloured, whereas the sound characteristics of the object areconnected to an activity about it. The presence of sounds is a statement ofsomething that is happening, an event, whose origin is in the object that is,in a way, the actor or the victim.” (Ibid. p. 37)In our case, the idea stemming from the event theory of sounds isthat hearing sounds in the city sets the agents more directly in connection withthe urban situation and events, involves them more strongly in their urbanenvironment than with the sole perception of its visual qualities. Artificial –in real life, we never separate sound from vision. Our perceptions areintertwined.This theory resonates with different authors, who have highlightedthe strong connection between sounds and the world of activities in which weare evolving. Many phenomenologists worked on that (cf. taskscapes)One of his important theories is the following: pragmatism (cf. JohnDewey – philosophy focusing on the effects of activities &#38; their consequences.Theory on truth – interesting to study in the Trump-era. Truth doesn’t have tobe defined in an essentialist way, but it needs to be studies regarding itseffect/consequence.Therefore, in Art asexperience, John Dewey outlined atheory of sounds as the manifestations of effects of/in the environment:“The eye gives the scene wherethings happen and on which changesare projected – always leaving it as a scene, even in the middle of turmoil andagitation. The ear, relying on the overall information provided by the jointaction of vision and touch, informs us, changes after changes. For the soundsare always effects: effects of collision, impact and resistance of forces ofnature.” (Dewey, 2005, p. 278)Sounds are effects. In asymmetrical way, they are effects on the agents, just from the vibrations thatfill the body. Dewey thus stresses a change in perceptual position (and, even morebroadly, “agent” position) between visionand hearing: on the one hand,spectatorality, and on the other hand, involvement or participation in theworld.We would like to suggest a concrete example to better highlight theinterest of a descriptive entry point in urban experiences via sounds: the example of the siren. It would be a paradigmaticelement of what Gibson (Americanpsychologist) calls “affordances of events” (1979,p. 102), but he only mentions it briefly in his theory of visual perceptionbased on affordances, their influence on the environment inviting action, andabout which he uses the example of the mailbox from Gestaltpsychologie. Themailbox is part of urban furniture. If I see it when I want to send a letter, Iimmediately use it for that. Fixed example. There’s another element thatcould be interested: affordances of EVENTS. (Gibson doesn’t mention them)Example of the siren (events):A siren whose noise is coming closer informs me, as a car driver,not only that something happened in my environment (the siren holds information), but also the necessity to drive tothe side to let an emergency vehicle through (the siren triggers an action). A counter-example can also highlight the importance of affordancesof events and their sound origins: it is the example of the particularly quiet“vehicular units” (Goffman) that arebikes (and more recently electric cars) when they arrive behind a pedestrian –to the point of making the urban coordination difficult, if not dangerous.To resume the example of sound recognition of different emergencysirens, it allows first to encounter a soundparticularity, called the Dopplereffect (sound effect): the siren is perceived at a higher tonality when the vehicle is close, and a deeper one when it drives away. Then, it “gives a way to hear” socioculturalelements of an urban environment, where social habits and expectations area part of perception. Not just architecture, but also sociocultural events.Indeed, perceiving an incoming emergency vehicle urges the driver topull over: this is not a self-preservation reflex (like a pedestrian who isbeing honked), but because we are partof a society in which this sound has a specific signification, that compels to act. This example shows howthe hold in urban events can be first auditory, but is essentiallyinter-sensory in situation: hearing an incoming vehicle is often confirmed bychecking in the mirror, even sometimes by slowing down our own car to alleviatethe feeling of speed(proprioception).Lastly, this example highlights to what point these affordances cango: the exact recognition of the emergency can lead to a nearby pedestrian’s participation, depending on his skills (doctor, police officer,firefighter, emergency worker, etc.). This example, in the context of terrorismin many cities – the sound dimension became generalised, about the event (explosion,etc.) and what follows (sirens, etc.),In that sense, the affordances of events help to involve a more important social wealth compared tothe mailbox (or the chair, whichinvites me to sit down when I’m tired – classic example of affordances).They do not simply suggest frozen settings where I can choose one element oranother. They pull me in, involve me insituations.Thank you! Next, unusual part – Q&#38;A/discussion.N.T.: Very rich and dense. Academic field that is very active. Wecan start a debate together, but we can have some specific aspects.2 examples on the first case: electric cars (silent), that questionour everyday life in an unexpected way. With Nicolas Remy, they went on a conference. BMW was doing somemarketing on new electric cars. They had the opportunity to try it. Theproposition done at the time (2001) doesn’t exist anymore: the idea was thesound communicated to the outside, and the sound communicated to the driver(how do I know that I’m going faster?). Perceptions slowed down. Gap betweensound and vision – sound was one of the first warning mechanisms. They had thus taken microphones to capture outside and insideenvironments, and, with speakers on the backseat, the driver could choose whatkind of car they wanted to sound like (or silent – 2 CV/ 4/ 6). At the time,very impressive. The sensation of driving was completely different from aclassic electric car. In A. Pecqueux’s example: sound we communicate, and soundwe give ourselves.2nd case: 2006 – South of China. Motorbikes (petrol) wereforbidden.They arrived by train, in a ghost city – electric vehicles and, tosave energy, with no lights on the engines. Sliding “ghosts” all around.We have learned how to perceive via mechanisation/electricity. Inthe 21st century, the urban sensitivity might result in othersensitivities/experiences/paradigms. Don’t we base our sensory experiences onthe technology of the 20th century? Second question/debate points: Impossible to live a “silent city”,just like “all-sounding city”. We can’t preserve everything.We can’t consider that everything is worth listening to. But thoseare dangerous slopes to take. Difficult position: sound is everything at the same time. à What can the designer do, then? Intervention on sound. Notaddressed. What is the place of sound design in locations that, apparently,could live without?Devisme: descriptive urbanism. We need to describe the city, talkabout it, represent it, discuss it – tools to grasp it. In a way, talking aboutit involves its future, how we might be able to design it (differently). 20thcentury – disappearance of the idea of composition (main idea) – advent ofspace, as the heart of every project. “Spatial turn” slowly disappearing again, and composition is comingback.Idea of ambiance.Same question with time – event theory/effect theory. Can(sound/other) ambiance stem from theory of events, or is event theory a part ofambiances? How do we not fall into the “extreme” that affected space, whentalking about time? Concept of conception/design of the world we live in.Generic questions – what kind of answers, now? The interventionmakes us think about space in a broader sense, beyond sound.A.P.: 2001/BMW: German manufacturer, certain type of vehicles. OnGerman highways, no speed limits (currently in debate). BMW – very powerfulcars. Pleasure of driving.2006: is our conceptual baggage not already late to tackle this newreality? First contact with CRESSON (around 2005/2006): end of thesis,post-doc with Orange – at the time, still a public provider. Still a phenomenalR&#38;D department. Lab on sociology of uses – one of the only ones in Franceat the time. (Réseau journal)Surveys on the different objects they used to produce. When he arrived, he was free to do his research work, but he had towork on one of their objects (in that case: mobiles) – music with earphones inhis case.Investigation about walker-listeners. (Jean-Paul Thibaud worked onthe users of the Walkman device) Back to the question à he grew upwith the Walkman device, it was part of his everyday life (listening withheadphones, then earphones). During his investigation, he followed thewalker-listeners (younger than he was); he realised that their way of usingearphones was already different from his time. Completely different: integratedto everyday life. People were using earphones differently, taking one out totalk to someone, but no longer turning the whole device off to communicate.The feeling of being in the world was different.The world discovered in China in 2006 – people driving without theirlights on, is obviously surprising. This world is a set of coordinationparameters (very precise knowledge on the city). We are always late, asresearchers, when we study phenomena like that, we catch them as they happen,on the fly.These practices are not without meaning. When we describe/studythem, we end up with a universe of nuances – virtue of research.When he was walking on the Walkman, people tended to say that peoplewere “in their bubble”. But that’s wrong. Different abilities to coordinateyourself. You just have to be ready to describe them.Other question: more complex. Introduction to a world of nuances. Wecan study the “in-between” world. The “real” world never happens at the extremepoles of the spectrum. Question of routine. We can think the event only if we understandthe routine of perceptions. What can designers do? “I’m a sociologist, I’m nota designer” – not a good answer. Cf. Laurent Devisme – descriptive urbanism.Cf. Dewey – one of the central questions: proposition of generalphilosophy. Events and habits. Dewey says that we are constantly set in a worldof routine/habits, everything works, the interactions between the world and meare working. Something happens, and a gap appears. It can be big or small (ex:the light switches off unexpectedly.) I’m going to see why. Chain ofinvestigation.I’m going to try and make my relationship to the world harmoniousagain. I will intervene to make that happen. This scheme is reproduced in manyfields of life, for Dewey. Science, art, and education. Dewey is very famous ofhis theory of education (cf. Montessori, education based on experience).Political theory. Dewey published another book – one of the firstexpressions on public participation. Social life: a group of people, affectedby some consequences, will form a public and will investigate, to see what putsthem in this situation. Participatory democracy.What interests him, therefore, is to follow and possibly take partin a public in formation, without basing himself on differences of knowledge. NT: different questions that involve everyone.Open discussionQuestion: How can the designer adapt himself to the evolution ofsound events? Walkers now have big speakers. A person on a bike becomes afleeting sound event as he bikes away, for example.Answer: cf. experience at Orange. Development (more than research) –futurology (kind of). Are we able to grasp the new trends as they appear? Asmanufacturers, there is an obvious interest. To him, it’s not a bad thing if weare a little late. If we are able to understand the phenomena, it’s alreadygood.Contemporary example: the yellow vests – if you read the news, theydo not stop making people talk. Researchers are interviewed on that topic, butthey haven’t done any research on the subject. We need a proper investigationon the subject. The only ones who can actually talk legitimately are thehistorians, as they can create comparisons.Mass of comments since the beginning of the movement.Question: Materiality of places – something similar happened intheir research on foodscapes. Draw a location, and comment the drawing.Woman: drawing of a market – very familiar with that space. Adultsand children. She liked the place because there are children. Question – samewith supermarkets? But no, because the children there are annoying. Perceptionof places – different experiences. The market is familiar to her, and thesupermarket is functional.Idea of public – following a public, people who are thinking about aproblem. What do we do about the people who cannot be part of a public, but whoare involved in that environment? Answer: Foodscape/Drinkscape (on wine).Question of methodology – methods. Field work + theoretical input atCRESSON. When we talk about investigation, we have to mention methods. Drawing,good one. Another one, elaborated here: commented walks. Disseminated in manydifferent contexts. We follow people to understand how they experience the world.You will learn about other methods throughout the week. To tackle the sensoryexperience, we need methods. Hard to study otherwise.Other question, on people’s abilities: the investigation (withLaure) consists in following a space on precarity, homelessness. The aim is toinclude in the participation those who are not usually participating: beingpoor is to be there but not take part. Usually, we talk about everyone, but notthose who do not have an address. Space where we gradually empower (careful withthat term) people, those who do not usually interact, or are not able to do itby default.We need to include more and more people/participants. We know thatparticipative systems are noteworthy for those who do not participate. We needto include everyone.Question: Method. Idea of sharing – at what point does it end? Cf.ad for Fnac. Question of point of view. If we’re in that same bus shelter, howcan we analyse that population sample at thatspecific moment? How is it studied? Is it representative? How can we reporton that situation, that involves so much at once?Answer: Everything is in everything. Methods, politics, everythingis involved. It depends on the side we choose. By being careful ofexpressions/phrases – objectivity/subjectivity – The concept of objectivity inscience is something new. It wasn’t always the case. Personally, as asocio-anthropologist, he doesn’t care about representativity(that’s the work of a statistician). He cares about diversity. Constantpreoccupation. Every investigation is biased – if we talk about diversity,we’ll try to talk about everyone: age, social class, etc.Political question: democratic model. Democracy is not aboutconsensus. It is the system thatallows for disagreements. Question of agreement, now. How can we reach anagreement? Tricky. Different ways to reach there.Democracy: vote. Best way to reach an agreement. Is it the best way?Question/Remark 1: The sensory part that we can grasp with sound andodours – he worked for an association, to study at-home assistants. Hewitnessed different situations, ambiances, sounds, smells, etc. Veryinteresting to describe actors we cannot define. Hard to describe. To describethe heart of a profession could be possible via the sensory elements. Sounds punctuatea day, a moment, and can re-define perceptions.Answer: Very good point. Scope of the sensory world. Theory of care.If we are not attached to the sensory part, we cannot understand this world ofcare. Cresson helped making visible the relationships to environments. Manyother fields can be affected.Remark 2: Classic scheme of analysis. Content/Actors. Nowadays, wetalk about actors, and no longer about designers/architects/etc.Users can be the producers of the ambiance, and not the designers. How can we position ourselves in the production of ambiance? How canwe integrated all the relationships like that? Evolution of function andambiance. Significant car manufacturers take care of every sound, as it becomes their “brand” in a way (the sound ofslamming doors, etc.).Answer: Interesting. Sterile dual separations, like form/content,etc. It’s natural, but we need to take the time to step back and distanceourselves from the easy division. Before/after is another one of thoseexamples. Inhabitants are not necessarily specialists of the “before”. A publicspace doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Regulation and functioning of a public space –need the users. We need to step back from those divisions and be more complex.Remark 3: Question of science, education, art. Participatoryarchitecture, before and after – abilities of the residents to live theirspace. Practice of education and architecture. Other dynamics that can bedeveloped – reaction against some sort of homogeneity in public space. The spacesgive a form to practices and habits. How can a participatory and sensoryarchitecture re-open possibilities? Acoustic awareness – new relationshipbetween the senses?Answer: Political question (again). Pragmatism – American democracyis very special. Conception of education &#38; politics. Alternative pedagogy.Development of individuals and collective aspects. HAND IN HAND. Individualabilities AND communities.Diversity in individual expression on every level.Translation by Sophie Provost 