week01

What I Do

Part1:

This is my favorite work. They are conducting facial electrical stimulation tests: the temples, the forehead, the nose, the cheeks, all are covered with electrical stimulation patches like a therapeutic device. When the music starts, the electricity flows through, and the face jerks. The eyebrows, the corners of the mouth, the cheeks, the eyes, all become part of the rhythm. The expressions are triggered like those of a puppet on strings.

It gave me the feeling that music was actually controlling humans in reverse. It seemed that music wasn't expressing anything, but rather controlling. Four people moved in the same rhythm and made the same expressions, but their bodies were telling you: this wasn't an active action. The most hilarious part was that they all wore glasses - when their faces twitched, the glasses kept slipping off but couldn't be removed - the uncomfortable feeling was magnified to an extremely funny extent. I couldn't help thinking: They must be very uncomfortable, right? But precisely because of this discomfort, it became even more like black humor.

I find that I really enjoy this kind of humorous, ironic, and somewhat cruel work now. It makes me laugh, but after laughing, I feel a bit uneasy. It reminds me of those electric stimulation therapy devices that are attached to the hands online. When you are halfway through a movement and suddenly get an electric shock, it interrupts the movement you were planning to do, creating a very strange human-machine sensation. To some extent, I see a metaphor of a power relationship/control relationship in it. I am also quite interested in this critical issue.

Part2:

I chose the sound of keyboard typing. At first, I didn't consider it as a "sound object" because it was too ordinary. It was something I produced every day but never paid attention to. But after I started paying attention to the sound itself, I discovered that, for example, when I was in a hurry, typing would become faster and heavier; when I was angry, I would press the Enter key forcefully a few times; when I was frustrated or couldn't finish typing, I would press the Delete key very quickly and repeatedly.

In terms of sound, there are significant differences in rhythm, intensity and repetition patterns among them.

What I find interesting is that this difference is not just something I can sense myself. I noticed that in public spaces like libraries or classrooms, even without looking at people, we can infer someone's emotions or state by the speed, force, and repetition pattern of their keyboard strokes. I never realized before that this is actually a shared auditory judgment.

The keyboard sounds here are no longer just background noise; they are a signal that others can interpret and carry information. Without visual information, people also make quick, almost automatic judgments about others' states through sound.

我选的是键盘打字声。一开始我其实没有把它当成一个“声音对象”，因为它太日常了，几乎是我每天都在制造、但完全不会去听的声音。但我在开始关注声音本身后发现，比如我着急的时候，打字会变得又快又重；生气的时候，我会用力按一两下回车键；懊恼或者改不完的时候，我会非常快、非常密集地按删除键。

从声音上来说，它们在节奏、力度和重复模式上都有很明显的差异。

让我觉得有意思的是，这种差异不只是我自己能感受到。我注意到在图书馆或者课堂这种公共空间里，即使不看人，我们也会通过键盘敲击的速度、力度和重复模式，去判断一个人的情绪或状态。我以前从没意识到，这其实是一种被共享的听觉判断。键盘声在这里已经不只是背景噪音，而是一种会被他人解读的信号，在携带状态信息。在缺乏视觉信息的情况下，人通过声音，对他人的状态做出快速、近乎自动的判断。

Related Linkshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0p5f1oNOSdk-sj7uWuxvq8b4h3m7r8-P&jct=4rkibc6s4DL7tIOHprd5jw

Reflection

Personal experience

This week I started a playlist for doing my homework. When I clicked on it, I realized it wasn't a "music list" at all; it was more like looking at someone else's desk.

This was the first video that I saw and was particularly moved by. She explained the control knobs and waveforms in the sound generator. First, she removed the square wave, and it did sound indeed more harsh and piercing. This was because there were more higher harmonics, and those harmonics caused the waveform to have "corners". I realized that "harsh" is not just an emotional judgment; it has components, structure, and reasons. White noise is more complex, like a lump of dough that hasn't been kneaded yet. It's not "pleasant", but it is "abundant". Then she said that the basic sounds are not very interesting. To make them valuable in music, they must be shaped, molded, and carved. Suddenly, I felt that sounds and materials really don't differ that much. You can take the hollow sound of a piece of wood, or you can create a texture that doesn't exist in reality from the generator. What you want is not "sound", but "usable sound".

More importantly, when she demonstrated the generator, I had the first clear "recognition" feeling. It wasn't something like "oh this sounds nice", but rather "oh this is it". Different generators produce different sounds, the screen alerts to different waveform changes, and by turning the knobs, a certain dimension is opened up. I can't explain it well, but I know it's completely different from what I had heard before from Do Re Mi's Sopra Sera. The scale seems to put you into a musical language; while these generators seem to be breaking down the sound into parts, telling you how it is constructed.

This also helped me understand Max better. Max's patches are like blueprints. You don't just randomly pick an atmosphere based on your intuition; you connect the elements, adjust the values, and make the structure happen. The "quantifiable" aspect gives one a strange sense of security. I feel like I'm not guessing; I'm actually seeing it.

Then, in the second half of the video when the final product was shown, there were high heels tapping rhythmically and fingers tapping on the table. Suddenly, I realized that in editing (what I mean is the short videos that are spreading on social media nowadays),
often it's not the picture that is accompanying the music, but the music that is accompanying the picture. When the music changes, the meaning of the picture also changes. You could even say that the music determines whether the audience will continue to watch or not.

Then, suddenly the music became sharper and the rhythm faster. My body reacted before my brain: as if something bad was about to happen. At that moment, I really wanted to call it "auditory narration". Because it doesn't need any explanation; you will just be transported into that premonition. But then I immediately wondered: Is this the work itself narrating, or am I being led along by the familiar suspense film sound effects template I'm familiar with? Is this Umwelt? Is it my cultural experience that is helping me automatically complete the picture? So is this a perception mode of "auditory cues + personal/cultural experience"?

Another voice was very ethereal and distant, and the sense of space suddenly became much larger. I also felt that it was extremely relevant to the title "Tomorrow World". In my imagination, the future is like this: distant, ethereal, uncontrollable, and grand. But at the same time, I also wondered: Could it be that I have overly stereotyped the concept of "future"? Could it be that "unknown" = "mystery" and "unknown" = "fear"? These are also the default formulas of my brain.

This video shows him being fascinated by how sound shapes the sense of reality. He mentions the "voice box", where people are dancing happily in the dance floor. Once that sound is applied, they will look up, as if under hypnosis. He also mentions the ticking sound of the car's turn signal when he was a child, watching the lights flicker, which gave him a sense of simultaneity. He uses the theremin; he doesn't want to control it, but rather seems to be conversing with it. He says that sound is not just "listening"; it occurs together with the body, and it is a more "sensory experience".

He mentioned that he set the frequency of the electric device at around 111Hz (the resonant frequency), as some ancient stone chambers/spaces in Northwestern Europe were carved with a 111Hz resonance. He also mentioned that the shaman drumbeats are very fast and may induce experiences/even hallucinations. This is not just "listening", but also the interaction between sound and the body, and it is a pure experience.

Moreover, I have been increasingly reluctant to use the word "learning". Learning sounds like a rigid and active process: I have to strive, I have to get into the right mindset, and I have to make efforts. But "experiencing" seems to be something I truly desire. I enter a state of calm and then the knowledge just settles down on its own. Perhaps this is what I have been pursuing all along: not turning the world into a task, but turning the world into an experience.

I believe that when people are alive, they should understand and explore the world in this way. A system is the recognition work that humans do to understand the meaning of the world and life. People should attach importance to the choice of words because language is shaping the brain every day. For example, "difficult" and "challenge" describe the same thing but have different impacts on one's mindset.
But I do feel a bit confused as well, because I've noticed that what attracts me might not be the work itself, but the methods behind it. Without these creative processes, would I still have the same interest in the same sound? Am I comparing the works, or am I actually comparing: How do different people understand and treat sounds?

This is my favorite work. They are conducting facial electrical stimulation tests: the temples, the forehead, the nose, the cheeks, all are covered with electrical stimulation patches like a therapeutic device. When the music starts, the electricity flows through, and the face jerks. The eyebrows, the corners of the mouth, the cheeks, the eyes, all become part of the rhythm. The expressions are triggered like those of a puppet on strings.

It gave me the feeling that music was actually controlling humans in reverse. It seemed that music wasn't expressing anything, but rather controlling. Four people moved in the same rhythm and made the same expressions, but their bodies were telling you: this wasn't an active action. The most hilarious part was that they all wore glasses - when their faces twitched, the glasses kept slipping off but couldn't be removed - the uncomfortable feeling was magnified to an extremely funny extent. I couldn't help thinking: They must be very uncomfortable, right? But precisely because of this discomfort, it became even more like black humor.

I find that I really enjoy this kind of humorous, ironic, and somewhat cruel work now. It makes me laugh, but after laughing, I feel a bit uneasy. It reminds me of those electric stimulation therapy devices that are attached to the hands online. When you are halfway through a movement and suddenly get an electric shock, it interrupts the movement you were planning to do, creating a very strange human-machine sensation. To some extent, I see a metaphor of a power relationship/control relationship in it. I am also quite interested in this critical issue.

This work begins in a tower. The building is modeled after the Tower of the Winds in Athens, and there are also anthropomorphic representations of the wind on its exterior. It is also mentioned that this is a clock tower, a time-keeping device. It then descends to describe its former function as an observatory, where it was used to gaze at the stars.

Then he quoted Marconi, saying that once a sound is produced, it will never truly die out; it just fades away gradually, until you think it has disappeared, but in fact it has been there all along.

Following this line of thought, I came to think of radio. Marconi was a pioneer of radio. "Radio call sign signals" and "radio interval signals". That's the short melody you hear when switching between different radio stations, like a confirmation: you've tuned to the right channel. There are hundreds of such signals all over the world. They were originally functional, like road signs.

Then the artist's approach was to have someone record all these signals using a tremolo synthesizer. The tremolo synthesizer is a fascinating instrument; when it starts playing, it creates a profound sense of space, with the resonance pushing the boundaries of the room further away, making you feel "infinite". She transmitted these signals from the Oxford Modern Art Tower via radio, and then had four independent surround speakers distribute them throughout the room. Thus, the "radio silence" no longer became the gap between channels during switching, but turned into a continuous pause - as if suspending time with the intervals themselves.

When I listened to it, I felt it was very ethereal. It was completely different from the obvious electronic experimental sounds before. It was more like mist. I could tell that this wasn't a traditional instrument playing, but a synthesizer creating something that "feels like space". This contradiction made me very excited: it turns out that synthesizers can also do this, they can create a quiet but distant feeling. I think this is the direction I like.

The next one is "Mechanical Ballet", which is like a fully automated performance: the computer program controls the devices to press the piano keys and strike the percussion instruments. The instruments produce sounds on their own, as if a large orchestra is moving on its own. The version I watched had poor picture quality, like a secretly filmed one, but it was even more shocking - because in a blurry image, you see "the music playing itself". Of course, I know this can't be entirely "by itself", there must be someone controlling it. But even so, people still get astonished. That astonishment is not at the rational level, but at the perceptual level: the causal chain of reality is replaced, and suddenly you don't know where the "performer" is, causing a sense of reality dislocation.

And all of the above are not differences in "musical style", but rather differences in "how sounds can be treated". I still don't have an answer. All I know is that I have begun to be dissatisfied with "what it sounds like", and I have started to wonder "how it does it". At the same time, I am thinking: without these process demonstrations, without these methods being exposed, would I still have the same interest in the same sound? Am I really loving the work, or am I loving the moment when "the method is seen"?

MAX

Reflection

Personal experience

Today, I attended the first class of Sound Studio. The first question posed at the beginning of the class was "What is sound?" It sounded like a question for a primary school student, but I found that I actually had difficulty answering it in just one sentence. The focus of this class is not "making music", but rather cultivating a sense of sound awareness. It's not treating sound as an accessory to visuals, not as a background, not as an atmosphere, but rather viewing it as a phenomenon. It is material, structure, time, and event.

We talked about some very specific things. For instance, the outer ear can be used to determine the location of a sound. For example, those tiny hairs inside the ear constantly send signals to the brain when they vibrate. And after a party ends, that persistent ringing in the ears is not "sounds from the outside", but rather your perception system hasn't stopped yet.

Suddenly, I realized that sound is not a "thing", but more like a continuous process. It occurs within the body, within the nerves, and within time.

The teacher then introduced another word: "Umwelt". This is a German word, and its meaning is not "environment", but rather: the world that a certain existence perceives.
The world does not have just one version.
Rather, every life exists in its own perceptual universe. The same tree, for a person, is a scenery, a shade, a backdrop for taking photos. For a dog, it is an odor map, a social message board. For a bird, it is a habitat. For insects, it might be the entire universe. They share the same physical space, yet live in completely different realities.

So I always thought what I heard was "the sound itself", but in fact, what I heard might just be "the sound as perceived by me".

This suddenly brought me back to my personal relationship with sound.
If I look at myself honestly, the way I usually use sound seems to be exactly the opposite. I really love white noise, soft music, and repetitive sounds with strong structures. I like them not because they "are saying something", but because they make me feel safe and comforted.

For me, sound has always been a very important source of input. Or rather, it has been a part of my life structure. But today I suddenly realized a problem - am I always treating sound as an accessory?

Now when I study, read or type, I almost always play white noise. But back then, what I really focused on was the screen, the text, and the visuals.
Sound is merely a tool that "facilitates the smooth operation of vision".

If that's the case, if we look at it from the perspective of the "sound consciousness" that the teacher mentioned, my current usage is almost the opposite. So, is the sound here actually being downgraded? It's just a soothing mechanism, a function button.

But strangely enough, I don't dislike this state at all. In fact, I can even say that it is a very important survival strategy for me right now. This makes me a little confused.

The teacher later talked about music, saying that music is "organized sound". Structured sounds. The reason why it triggers emotional responses is largely due to cultural background, learning experiences, and how we interpret these sounds.

This reminds me of CC. CC is a person who studied classical music. He told me that he was trained since childhood to listen for the narratives within the music.

For him, music is not just a background or an emotional atmosphere, but rather the main element that "tells a story". When I listened to him say these things, I truly felt that he was extremely talented.
Because my auditory experience is quite different. What I mostly perceive is the influence of music on emotions.

What I felt more was: comfort, discomfort, relaxation, being comforted, being inspired, and so on.

For instance, when meditating, I would choose white noise. But there is one interesting thing: Once I truly entered the meditative state, those sounds actually "disappeared". Not in a physical sense, but rather I became unaware of them. This made me feel that sounds, in my case, seem to exist on different levels. Some are used by me to enter the state. Some are perceived outside of the state. They seem not to be at the same "listening" position.

However, CC is quite the opposite. He said he hardly felt the soothing effect of music on his emotions. Because his attention would automatically delve into the internal structure and narrative of the sound. I'm not sure if my understanding is correct. But I began to vaguely sense that this difference might not be a matter of "preference", but rather a problem of training and perception methods. In the first class, I said that I was very interested in the influence of sounds on the human brain, especially on the perception level.
In fact, this interest did not suddenly emerge. Last semester, the project I was working on was attempting to shift some of our attention away from our highly visual-dominated world and towards the auditory domain. At that time, I already realized that we had studied "seeing" too much, while using "hearing" almost instinctively. This was precisely the reason why I chose this course. Sound is very important in my life. I have always known this. But what I didn't know was why it was important. I like it, rely on it, use it, but I can't explain its structure, logic, composition. I can't say how it affects me or through which levels it operates. So I wanted to learn about sound.

Right now, I might be at the "what is it" stage. Not the "how to do it" stage, nor even the "why" stage.
It is precisely at this point that I suddenly connected this course with the concept of "existence". I have always believed that for something to "exist", it must be able to be communicated. To be able to be communicated, there must be language. And the prerequisite for language is that we can first recognize, distinguish, and name. If I cannot distinguish different sound phenomena, if I don't have words to describe them, then for me, they might only remain as "feeling good" or "feeling bad". And now, this course might be doing exactly what it is doing: helping me establish a system for recognizing and distinguishing sounds.

Just as we mentioned when discussing skeuomorphism, form is not merely about how visually appealing it is, but rather how it guides perception, how it carries history, and how it enables people to understand "what I'm using". The same might be true for sound.

今天上 Sound Studio 的第一节课，一上课抛出的第一个问题，What is sound? 听起来像是小学生问题，但我发现自己其实很难一句话回答。这门课的重点不是“做音乐”，而是培养一种声音意识。不是把声音当作视觉的附属品，不是背景，不是气氛，而是把它当成一种现象去看，它是材料，是结构，是时间，是事件。

我们讲到一些很具体的东西。比如外耳可以用来判断声音的位置。比如耳朵里那些细小的毛发，会在震动时不停地向大脑发射信号。比如在 party 结束后，那种一直响的耳鸣声，其实不是“外界的声音”，而是你的感知系统还没停下来。

我突然意识，声音不是一个“东西”，它更像是一个持续发生的过程。它在身体里发生，在神经里发生，在时间里发生。

老师接着讲了一个词：Umwelt。这是一个德语词，意思不是“环境”，而是：对某一个存在来说，它所感知到的那个世界。

世界不是只有一个版本。而是每个生命，都活在自己的感知宇宙里。同一棵树，对人来说，是风景，是阴凉，是拍照背景。对狗来说，是气味地图，是社交留言板。对鸟来说，是栖息地。对昆虫来说，可能是整个宇宙。它们共享同一个物理空间，却活在完全不同的现实里。

所以我一直以为我听到的是“声音本身”，但其实我听到的，可能只是“对我来说的声音”。这一下子把我拉回了我和声音的私人关系。

如果我诚实地看自己，我平时使用声音的方式，好像恰恰相反。我非常喜欢白噪音、轻柔的音乐、强循环结构的声音。我喜欢它们不是因为它们“在说什么”，而是因为它们让我感觉安全、被安抚。

声音对我来说，一直是一个非常重要的输入来源。或者说，是我生活结构的一部分。但今天我突然意识到一个问题，那我是不是一直在把声音当作附属品？

现在我学习、阅读、打字的时候，几乎都会放白噪音。可那时候，我真正关注的是屏幕，是文字，是视觉。
声音只是一个“让视觉更顺利运作”的工具。如果是这样的话，如果按照老师说的那种“声音意识”来看，我现在的用法，几乎是反着来的。那声音在我这里，是不是反而被降级了？它只是一个安抚机制，一个功能按钮。

但奇怪的是，我并不讨厌这种状态。甚至可以说，这是我目前非常重要的一种生存策略。这让我有点困惑。

老师后来讲到音乐，说音乐是 “organized sound”。有结构的声音。它之所以会引发情绪反应，很大一部分来自文化背景、学习经验，以及我们如何理解这些声音。

这让我想到 CC，CC 是学古典音乐出身的。他跟我说，他从小被训练去听音乐里的叙事。对他来说，音乐不是背景，不是情绪氛围，而是一个在“讲故事”的主体。我听他说这些的时候，是真的觉得他很厉害。

因为我的听觉经验几乎完全不一样。我更多感受到的是音乐对情绪的影响。我更多感受到的是：舒服、不舒服、放松、被安抚、被激励等等。比如冥想的时候，我会选白噪音。但有一件事很有意思：当我真的进入冥想状态之后，那些声音反而“消失”了。不是物理意义上的消失，而是我意识不到它们了。这让我觉得，声音在我这里，似乎存在不同的层级。有的是被我用来进入状态的。有的是在状态之外被感知的。它们好像并不在同一个“听”的位置上。

而 CC 则恰恰相反。他说他几乎感受不到音乐对情绪安抚的作用。因为他的注意力，会自动进入声音内部的结构和叙事里。我不确定自己这样理解对不对。但我开始隐约感觉到，这种差异，可能并不是“喜好”的问题，而是训练和感知方式的问题。

我在第一节课上说，我对声音影响人脑、尤其是感知层面的影响，很感兴趣。

其实这并不是突然冒出来的兴趣。上个学期，我做的项目就在试图把一部分注意力，从我们极度视觉主导的世界里，转移到听觉上。我当时就已经意识到，我们对“看”研究得太多了，对“听”却几乎是本能式地在使用。这也正是我选择这门课的原因。声音在我生活中很重要。这一点我一直都知道。但我不知道的是它为什么重要。我喜欢它、依赖它、使用它，却说不清它的结构、逻辑、组成方式。我说不清它是怎么影响我的，又是通过哪些层面在起作用的。所以我想学习声音。
我现在可能正处在“是什么”的阶段。不是“怎么做”，甚至还不是“为什么”。

也正是在这里，我突然把这门课和“存在”这件事连在了一起。我一直认为，一个东西要“存在”，就要能被交流。要能被交流，就必须有语言。而语言的前提，是我们先能识别、区分、命名。如果我无法区分不同的声音现象，如果我没有词汇去描述它们，那它们对我来说，可能就只能停留在“感觉很好”或“感觉不好”。而现在这门课，可能正在做的事情就是：帮我建立一套识别和区分声音的体系。

就像我们讲 skeuomorphism 的时候说的那样，形式并不只是好不好看，而是它如何引导感知，如何携带历史，如何让人理解“我在用什么”。声音可能也是一样。

Reflection

Personal experience

这周我开始刷作业的 playlist。我点开之后发现，发现根本不是“听歌清单”，更像是把别人的工作台摊开看。

这是我最喜欢的作品，它在做面部电刺激测试：太阳穴、额头、鼻子、脸颊，都贴着像理疗仪一样的电刺激贴片。音乐一响，电一下，脸就抽一下。眉毛、嘴角、腮帮子、眼睛，都变成节奏的一部分。表情是像提线木偶一样被触发的。

让我产生了一种音乐反过来控制人类的感觉。好像音乐不是在表达，而是在控制。四个人在同样的节奏下做出同样的表情，但他们的身体又在告诉你：这不是主动的。最搞笑的是他们还都戴着眼镜——脸一抽，眼镜快掉不掉，那种不舒服感被放大到很好笑的程度。我甚至会忍不住想：他们一定很不舒服吧。但也正因为这种不舒服，它才更像黑色幽默。

我发现我现在很喜欢这种诙谐、反讽、带一点残酷的作品。它让我笑，但笑完又有点不安。它让我想到网上那种电刺激理疗仪贴在手上，然后你做动作做一半突然被电一下，会打断你想做的动作，带来一种很怪异的人机感。

某种程度上看到了一种权力关系/控制关系的隐喻，我对于这种批判性议题也挺感兴趣的。

这是第一个我看到后比较有感触的视频，她讲述了sound generator中控制旋钮和波形，先是把方波拿出来，听起来也确实更硬、更刺。是因为高次谐波多，那些谐波让波形出现“角”。我意识到原来“刺耳”不是一句情绪判断，它有成分、有结构、有原因。白噪音更复杂，像一团还没被捏过的面。它也不“好听”，但它很“多”。然后她说，基础声音都不太有趣，要让它们在音乐里有价值，就必须去塑形、去揉捏、去雕刻。我忽然觉得，声音和材料真的没差那么多，你可以取一块木头的空心声，也可以从发生器里捏出一种现实里没有的质感。你要的不是“声音”，是“可用的声音”。

更重要的是，她在演示 generator 的时候，我第一次有了那种很明确的“识别感”。不是“啊这个好听”，而是“啊这是它”。不同的发生器吐出不同的声音，屏幕提醒不同的波形变化，旋钮一转，某个维度就被拉开。我很难解释，但我知道它跟我以前听哆来咪发唆拉西完全不一样。音阶像是把你放进一种音乐语言里；而这些发生器像是在把声音拆成零件，告诉你它是怎么被构造出来的。

这也让我更理解 Max。Max 的 patch 就是蓝图。你不是凭感觉抓一个氛围，你是在连线、在调数值、在让结构发生。那种“可量化”的领域，会让人有一种奇怪的安全感。我会觉得，我不是在猜，我是在看见。

然后视频后半段放成品的时候，画面出现高跟鞋跟着节奏点地、手指敲桌面。我突然想到剪辑（我的意思是现在社交媒体上传播的短视频）很多时候不是画面在带音乐，而是音乐在带画面。音乐一换，画面的意义也跟着换。甚至你可以说，音乐决定了观众会不会继续看下去。

再然后，音乐突然变得更尖锐、节奏更快，我的身体比我的大脑先反应：像有什么糟糕的事要发生。我当下很想把它叫做“听觉叙事”。因为它不需要解释，你就是会被带到那个预感里。但我又马上怀疑：这到底是作品本身在叙事，还是我被自己熟悉的悬疑片音效模板牵着走？这是不是 Umwelt？是不是我所在的文化经验在帮我自动补全？所以这是一种“听觉线索+个人/文化经验”的感知模式吗？

另一个声音很空灵，很远，空间感突然变大。我又觉得它和 Tomorrow World 这个标题太贴了。未来在我的想象里就是这样：远的、虚的、不可控的、宏大的。可我同样也会怀疑：是不是我把“未来”想得太模板了？是不是未知=神秘、未知=恐惧，这本身也是我大脑的默认公式？

这一段视频讲他对声音如何塑造现实感很着迷。他提到 voice box ，舞池里人们跳舞跳得好好的，一用那个声音，他们会抬头，像被催眠一样。他提到小时候听汽车转向灯的 ticking 声，看着灯光闪烁，会产生一种共时性的体验。他用 theremin，不是想控制它，而是像在跟它对话。他说声音不只是 listening，它会和身体一起发生，是一种更“感官的经验”。

他谈到自己把电编程在 111Hz 左右（共振频率），因为西北欧一些古老石室/空间被雕刻成 111Hz 共振，并提到西藏颂钵、吟唱、声振传统，对声音在人类层面、生理层面、神经层面能做什么感兴趣，提到萨满鼓点很快，可能诱发体验/甚至幻觉，这不仅是“听”，也是声音与身体互动，是纯体验。

而且我最近越来越不想用“学习”这个词。学习听起来像一种硬的主动：我要努力、我要进入状态、我要付出。可“体验”更像我真正想要的东西，我在平静里进入一个状态，然后知识自己沉下来。也许这就是我一直在追的：不是把世界变成任务，而是把世界变成经验。

我认为人活着应该用这种方式去理解探索世界，系统是人类为了理解世界与人生意义而做的识别工作，人们应该重视用词，因为语言每天在塑造大脑，比如困难 vs 挑战，描述同一事但对心态影响不同。

但我也确实有点困惑，因为我发现我被吸引的可能不是作品本身，而是作品背后的方法。没有这些创作过程，我还会对同一个声音产生同样的兴趣吗？我是在比较作品吗，还是我其实在比较：不同的人到底怎么理解声音、怎么对待声音？

这个作品开场是在一个塔里。建筑被模仿雅典的 Tower of the Winds，外立面上还有拟人化的风。又提到这是一个 clock tower，是一个时间装置。又降到讲它曾经是天文台的功能，曾经用来仰望星空。

接着他引用马可尼，说声音一旦产生就不会真正死亡，只是慢慢淡下去，淡到你以为它消失了，但它其实一直还在。

顺着这条线想到无线电。马可尼是无线电先驱，“电台呼号信号”和“电台间隔信号”。就是那种你在不同电台之间切换时，会听到的一段很短的旋律，像是一种确认：你调对了频道。全世界有几百种这样的信号。它们本来是功能性的，像路标一样。

然后这个艺术家的做法是他让人用颤音琴把这些信号全部录下来。颤音琴这个乐器很奇妙，它一响起来就会带出一种深邃的空间感，共鸣像是把房间的边界推远，让你觉得“无限”。她把这些信号从牛津现代艺术塔用无线电传出去，又让四个独立的环绕声扬声器把它们洒满房间。于是那种“电台间隔”不再是切台时的空隙，而变成一种连续的停顿——像是在用间隔本身悬置时间。

我听的时候感觉非常空灵。跟前面那些明显的电子实验声完全不一样。它更像雾，我能听出这不是传统乐器在演奏，而是合成器在做出一种“像空间”的东西。这个矛盾让我很兴奋：原来合成器也可以这样，也可以做出一种安静但很远的感觉。我想这是我喜欢的方向。

再下一个是《机械芭蕾》，像是一场全自动的演奏：电脑程序控制装置去按钢琴键、去敲打击乐器，乐器自己发声，像一个大乐队自己在动。我看的这个版本画质很差，像偷拍的，但反而更震撼——因为你在一个模糊的画面里看到“音乐自己弹奏自己”。我当然知道这不可能完全是“自己”，肯定有人在控制。但即便如此，人还是会错愕。那种错愕不是理性层面的，而是感知层面的：现实的因果链被替换了，你突然不知道“演奏者”在哪里，让人产生了一种现实错位。

而以上它们都不是“音乐风格”的差异，更像是“声音到底能被怎样对待”的差异。我还没有答案。我只知道，我已经开始不满足于“听起来是什么”，我开始想知道“它是怎么做到的”。同时我在思考如果没有这些过程展示，如果没有这些方法被摊开，我还会对同一个声音产生同样的兴趣吗？我到底是在爱作品，还是在爱那种“方法被看见”的瞬间。

Theories and Cultural Impact of Media & Technology