Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.

Sleepwalker Archives Vol.3: Sound as a Distorter of Reality

This week’s activity for our group:

Objective: To construct a ‘real sound field’ with multiple layers of sound superimposed on each other, exploring co-temporality, perceptual dislocation and sound politics.
📋 Overall methodological structure:
Each participant will take turns to record in real time while listening to the previous person’s recording, creating ‘layers’ of sound.
Each layer will contain the following three types of sounds:
[Category A] Ambient Sounds – ‘the world you are in’.
This is the uncontrollable but most important layer, providing a ‘realistic’ background.
You can deliberately choose a space to record in that is rich in acoustic characteristics, for example:
The gentle turn of a page in a library / the sound of a pen tip scratching on paper
The sound of people on the street, cars, distant music.
Footsteps in a classroom, coughing, wind blowing on the curtains.
Spaces in the hallway with strong echoes (more reverb)
Wind, birdsong, electrical appliances by the windows in your home
Suggestion: do not actively create, but you can actively choose the ambient field.
[Category B] Body Sounds – ‘The reality you participate in’
This layer emphasises the presence of human beings, not the lines, but the ‘body behaviour’.
You can deliberately add some sounds that are rich in detail and have a particular rhythm, for example:
The sound of your own footsteps walking softly
Picking up a cup and putting it down (gently)
Drinking / Breathing / Clothes rubbing together
The sound of your hand writing or drawing on paper.
Turning the pages of a book / opening a zip / tearing paper.
It is important to be ‘naturally present’, not to ‘perform’ sounds.
[Category C] Voice as Thought – ‘the sound of your imagination’.
This is the only category where you can add a subjective/informative voice, but be careful with it.
You can include a small whispered murmur, repeating a word, reading, humming, etc:
Whispering a word such as ‘fake…’ , ‘loop…’ , ‘where am I…’
Imitating or responding softly when hearing a certain sound
A one-sentence verse/dream description
Play a random AI-generated ‘strange language’ from your mobile phone.
Mix in a previous audio recording (e.g. the previous voice you heard).
Rule: The voice doesn’t have to be clear, but it has to be ‘present’ and ‘dislocated’.
📡 Mixing Suggestion (for each participant):
While you are listening to the previous recording:
Ensure that the recording device receives both types of sound:
The previous audio that is playing (transferred to external playback via headphones or turned on at the same time)
The space you are in at the moment + your own voice.
You don’t have to create a soundscape, but you can guide yourself ‘into a state of being’:
For example, reading in silence + drinking water + listening to birds chirping outside the window.
Or listening to a recording while walking slowly in the space + feeling the air flow.
What you record is ‘you + the previous voice + your space’.
→ and pass it on to the next participant
Original sound:
Stacked sound:

Conclusion:

This experiment highlights the fragility of perception and the power dynamics of sound, revealing both the possibilities and limitations of collective artistic processes.

1️⃣ The Illusion of Synchrony
The layered recordings construct a false simultaneity, where past sounds are perceived as part of the present. This destabilization of linear time aligns with Sleepwalker’s interest in non-linear narratives, but raises questions: If sound can fabricate a false sense of presence, how does this affect our trust in lived experience? Does this suggest that time itself is a constructed perception rather than an objective flow?

2️⃣ Sonic Power Structures
Some frequencies dominate while others are erased, mirroring social hierarchies where certain voices are amplified while others remain unheard. This reflects broader political and curatorial challenges—who gets to speak, and who is silenced? Sleepwalker’s focus on inclusivity suggests a need to rethink how sound (and space) can be curated to resist these hierarchies rather than reinforce them.

3️⃣ The Unstable Nature of Reality
The experiment distorts familiar soundscapes, challenging the assumption that perception equals reality. If sound can reshape our sense of place, then space itself is fluid, subjective, and political. What does this mean for site-specific curation? Should Sleepwalker embrace fluid, evolving soundscapes rather than fixed environments?

4️⃣ The Paradox of Free Collaboration
Despite appearing open-ended, the process reveals hidden constraints—each layer is shaped by the previous one, limiting true improvisation. This exposes a paradox of participatory art: does collaboration inherently impose structure? Can Sleepwalker turn this into a curatorial strategy, foregrounding the tensions between agency and limitation rather than masking them?

Next Steps for Sleepwalker

  • How can sound be curated to counteract social hierarchies rather than reflect them?
  • Should Sleepwalker explore immersive, evolving sound installations where audience input continuously alters the sonic landscape?
  • Can the concept of time distortion and perception manipulation be integrated into curatorial strategies beyond sound?

By critically engaging with these tensions, Sleepwalker can push beyond merely experimenting with sound toward actively reshaping curatorial practice through sonic interventions.

This sound experiment is essentially an acoustic preview of the post-human condition, and it exposes:

1. the colonisation of perceptual systems by technology has moved from extension to replacement

2. digital power is reconfiguring the cognitive order through the sonic spectrum

3. the traditional humanist concept of the subject is disintegrating in the vibratory community

Together, these conclusions point to a fundamental proposition: when technology can arbitrarily reconfigure humanity’s most basic spatio-temporal perceptions, we urgently need to establish a new cognitive contract to defend humanity’s perceptual sovereignty.

Reflection:

This collaborative experiment underscores the intricate relationship between sound, perception, and reality. By layering ambient, bodily, and vocal sounds, we crafted a soundscape that challenges linear temporality and questions the authenticity of our sensory experiences. This aligns with Schafer’s (1994) concept of the “soundscape” as both a physical environment and a method of perceiving it, highlighting how sound can shape our understanding of space and time.

The dominance of certain frequencies over others in our recordings mirrors societal power dynamics, where some voices are amplified while others are marginalized. This is reminiscent of LaBelle’s (2019) idea of “acoustic territories,” which emphasizes how sound structures spatial experience and encodes social relations.

Furthermore, the layering technique we employed resonates with the idea of “multivocality,” where multiple voices and sounds coexist, challenging the notion of a singular, authoritative narrative (Kahn, 1999). This multiplicity invites listeners to engage actively with the soundscape, constructing their own interpretations and experiences.

In essence, this project not only explores the artistic and curatorial potential of sound layering but also prompts a deeper reflection on how sound influences perception and reproduces or resists systems of power.

References :

Kahn, D. (1999). Noise, water, Meat : a History of Sound in the Arts. Cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press.

Labelle, B. (2019). ACOUSTIC TERRITORIES : sound, culture, and everyday life. S.L.: Bloomsbury.

R Murray Schafer (1994). The Soundscape : the Tuning of the World. Rochester, Vt.: Destiny Books ; United States.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel