[16-02-15 UK] Anne Point:
Thoughts on location 2:
Japan sounds – precise and rhythmic ‘submerging with the body of dancers into the world created on the digital canvas.’
UK sounds – echoing rhythms ‘following the lines in a hard vs soft distance’
This week Miku and I both had a longer list of sounds. It almost seemed that location 2, being at the sea sight, directed us automatically towards water sounds. It is funny however, that the both of us collected mechanic water sounds or water that seems to have been contained rather than natural water sounds.
The question if we want to emphasize either the body or the space with the sounds, led our conversation onto interesting paths of how we watch and remember our footage. Example: ‘If we have a hard surface within the location on the canvas, would we rather use echoing sharp sounds to emphasize this or would we want to use muffled sounds as to give a juxtaposition to the expectation of sound to what you hear?’
A lot of the sounds were open to interpretation, thus helicopters and frying pans made their appearance in our minds eye were there were non. This made me very aware of the potential to manipulate the expectations and the perception of our footage for future spectators. Here my fascination for playing with what we know and what we think we know in order to come to a new experience is getting another major impulse.
[16-02-15 Japan] Miku:
Anne’s sounds = many of them have material / object / man made kind of edgy, sharp and hard sounds. Nature vs man made objects. Characteristics of the city. However, some of the sounds have both qualities of hard and soft, which reminds me of my body (soft) vs buildings / objects (hard) during the shooting.
Miku’s sound = softer, blur, abstract, round sounds. Many of them are water related sounds. Although, the second location was by the seaside, I was interested in using the sound of different forms of water to create a friction between visual and audible.
– Using the sound that is related to the object in the frame… Is this too literal? Does it pull away the audience, or does it emphasize the idea / theme?
– Do we always need to use the sound that is not literal? How much friction do we need between visual and audible?
– Am I choosing sounds according to my visual memories or kinaesthetic memories of the location? What would be the difference if I chose visually or kinaesthetically?
– Mix of natural sounds and man made sounds can be an interesting mix of quality. It causes friction. It creates the elastic world (non-fixed, ever-changing imaginational world)
– Choosing sounds according to the location’s quality, such as the quality of the objects/materials, spaces, lightings, density, colours, and more…
– Unexpected non-related sound has a possibility to re-shape the location differently. Visual effect could emphasize OR it could ruin the whole picture.