Here is an unabridged version of the interview I recently had with Barry Blesser, author of “Spaces Speak, are you listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture”. More information on Barry Blesser can be found here: http://blesser.net/
This interview will appear in abridged form in the next edition of the Sound Studies Newsletter, slated for July 1, 2008.
Yukio King: Spaces Speak Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture, written by yourself and Dr. Linda Ruth-Salter, has been cause for a lot of discussion in academic circles and design communities alike. Right off the bat, what is Aural Architecture?
Barry Blesser: Aural architecture arises from those objects and geometries of the environment that change the experience of Sound sources. In natural environments, sound is always change by spatial acoustics as the sound wave moves from the source to the listener. There is no pure sound because both the source and the listen exist in a real space. Conversely, we cannot hear aural architecture without sonic “illumination” because passive objects and geometries do not produce sound.
From another perspective, aural architecture is the other half of a soundscape, which traditionally focuses mostly on sound sources. One can hear objects and geometries that themselves are not a source of sound. We can hear an open doorway, the depth of a cave, the volume of a cathedral, the small size of a bathroom, the echo from a wall, the cavernous avenues
in a metropolitan city, and the unique acoustics of a forest. The forest soundscape includes the sound of birds that have been changed by the forest acoustics. A listener can focus on the sources, the illuminated aural architecture, or both.
YK: Many would say that interesting sound phenomena are happenstance occurrences that can’t really be controlled. Does Aural Architecture result from intentional or unintentional design and planning decisions?
BB: In all the research that I did on the subject of aural architecture, I never found a case where aural architecture was the result of an intentional design. Similarly, I never found someone who considered himself an aural architect. While there are thousand of cases of acoustic engineers creating designs, these people are not deciding what is desirable. They are design a space based on specifications. In contrast, an aural architect determines what properties match the needs of the inhabitants and sponsors, while an acoustic engineer creates a physical design that matches those needs. For example, the degree to which a space enhances public or private attributes is the responsibility of the aural architect, who balances the needs of the users.
On the other hand, there is much evidence that aural architecture, which arose from unrelated cultural activities, was then evaluated, modified, replicated, and used as a reference for other designs. Hence, historically, aural architecture was reactive rather than proactive.
Creating an aural architecture from a blank paper is almost impossible because human beings do not have the ability to hear an imaginary sonic concept in the same way that a visual architecture can create a visual picture in his head. The cognitive and neurophysiologic basis for hearing and vision are not symmetric.
However, by establishing the language of aural architecture, the design process can become more active, rather than reactive. It remains to be seen if such conferences as the Tuned City contribute to this change.
In a sense, the language of aural architecture strongly suggests the use of a list of questions that can be answered by people without specialized skills. Consider such questions as the following. How large should the acoustic arena be? Should a space emphasize public or private? How much aural texture is aesthetically pleasing? Should a particular location amplify aural mass?
YK: Coming from Boston yourself, you know that cities can be loud places. Berlin is by no means an exception. Is sound pollution a valid concern that designers and planners need to take into account? How many decibels are too many for normal city dwellers?
BB: As you present the two questions, there are no possible answers because the critically important assumptions are missing. Let me illustrate how the question needs to be transformed.
How much exposure to a given sound level over extended periods of time will produce hearing damage in certain percentage of the population? There are studies that argue that exposure to 85 dB spl for 40 hours per week, year in and year out, will damage the inner ear. This is a medical question.
(more…)
