Andrew came in to talk to us about sound design, recording techniques, and the importance of listening as opposed to hearing. Although I had previous knowledge of audio in general, it was really refreshing to go over some techniques and practices.

 

I really enjoyed the idea of responding to a visual cue, as Andrew did with one of Jim's films, and also the symbiotic relationship they have when they are performing together. Being able to come together to collaborate with similar ideas, but not be directly involved with the genesis of the original piece, is something I know about, as an instrumental music producer. I make backing tracks, so that people, with arguably more musical talent than me, can finish them off by adding their own individual flair. In a way, I set up the platform for another artist's response. As would those that mine clay for molding, or the craftsman that creates and sells a drum. I could probably argue that the goat that *probably* unwillingly sacrificed itself to become the material for the drum, or that the tree that became a drumstick was also an artist, but that would be going way off-topic. 

​

I decided to respond to Sanja Dudek's video of clouds that she made as part of an observation challenge. She had created this piece that included some really nice footage of cloud formations and the generally overcast scenes that London provides each one of its visitors and inhabitants. Being able to give it sound meant that I could direct the mood of the video in any way I wanted to. The video itself was emotionally ambiguous as far as I could tell, so I created a dark soundscape that drove it towards the ominous swirling mass that resides beneath the clouds.

​

Talking about simulacra and simulation was incredibly eye-opening given the context that we as a planet are in. Being asked to live, work, and study from home means that, inevitably, we are more exposed, and for longer hours, to the effects of social media in order to stay in contact with the people we care about. This means we end up looking through the lenses of different media in order to find out how people are. Not that we need to, we could simply call each other. My point is that, as social contact becomes more and more archaic, we depend on the perspectives of others to drive our desires. Unfortunately, the most prominent and prolific sources of this perspective and drive, are coming from those that can afford to create the most captivating advertisements. Companies, whose desire is to sell a product and make money from it. This is done by painting the product in a positive light, as the most useful of its kind, with no alternate effects.

​

I hadn't yet come across the concept of simulacra in previous research, but it has been a systemic part of what I make. I think it's far more difficult not to be able to assimilate it into work than to completely ignore it. Not to sound like I look for the easy route, or the less arduous, just that I can't imagine not (at least trying) to put myself in someone else's shoes when I make something. Yes, it is important to portray the emotions that you carry as an artist, but you also hold some kind of responsibility and considerations for the audience. Being able to juggle these responsibilities and considerations appears to be a deciding factor in the successfulness of artistry.

​

It feels important to note, however, that the effects of simulacra are not mine to cure. By knowing what it is and by knowing how people can be affected by it is good enough for me. There isn't a culture of self-research into the type of lens you look through. There isn't a definitive way to stop people from being affected by the distortions of any lens. 

​

"

The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none.

The simulacrum is true.

-Ecclesiastes

 

"

​

This is the type of thing I'm talking about. This 'quote' is itself a simulacrum. It is a made-up quote.

 

(according to some not entirely trustworthy internet sources;

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Ecclesiastes-quote-in-Jean-Baudrillards-Simulacra-and-Simulation-1981-a-lie-farce-simulacrum

​

https://ask.metafilter.com/106459/Is-that-EcclesiastesBaudrillard-quote-accurate

​

also in Fragments: Conversations With François L’Yvonnet- https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=khSsAYUFaYUC&dq=In+Fragments:+Conversations+With+Fran%C3%A7ois+L%E2%80%99Yvonnet.&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=VQNINcjV-i&sig=ywOSg3tFy3TPfJqAsuhCMJilg5M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

​

The people on the MetaFilter link found it rather funny and Fragments mentions that it went unchecked until a Swiss reader enjoyed the quote so much that he then tried to find it in the bible and couldn't.)

​

Regardless of the authenticity of the quote, combating this concept entails collecting enough perspectives to uncover a more competed truth. Wait, why am I looking at simulacra as an illness? is it an ailment? Have we lost all trace of original thought? Have we ever had an original thought? I can just about understand that everything has been influenced by something else. I would like to believe that most people can. Does this really justify developing a concept for simulacra? If I may divert my thoughts back towards audio, I would argue that syncresis is a phenomenon of simulacra. Our brains trick us into thinking that actions and sounds occur at the same time, however, when we observe this relationship, we discover they do not. Is observation the cure for simulacra? Forgive my ignorance, but is simulacra just ignorance? Are we avoiding the truth due to a lack of intelligence or is it a lack of capacity? It could be that we are unable to know, not because we don't want to but because we can't know. 

​

The issue then becomes a collective suffering of simulacra, rather than individual outliers. If it has become a social issue, who am I to even attempt an approach. Perhaps we need a simulacrum reset. Pull the plug on all people of influence and start again with a million babies that will grow up to be uninfluenced and entirely original.

​

Of course, I'm not suggesting we build a machine that guns down entire populations, restores the Earth to a pristine version (obviously based on the influence of the people it just culled), and then self-destructs to leave no evidence of influence, that would go against my concerns on responsibility and considerations. 

​

It just feels like a watered-down version of the Simulation Hypothesis - as illustrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson (below).

​

While I might seem a bit 'glass-half-empty', I feel a bit more analogous to; the glass is bigger than anything inside the glass.

​

I think that what I struggle with is the futility of avoiding simulacra. How can we, if everything we do is someway influenced by something else?

​