David Novak argues in Sound Recordings (2018), “technologies quickly became embedded in the iconography of field collection that characterized early salvage anthropology. The presence of the recorder framed the dominant practices of ethnographic encounter, with the phonograph indexing a self-contained context of capture and analysis but not the more complex multidirectional aspects of exchanges with native informants”. Could my work in the field last week have been analogous with this critique? Am I imposing myself on others, and inadvertently drawing a parallel between my subjects and those of these indigenous tribes encountered by the ethnographers of the early twentieth century? Am I, by practicing an intrusive methodology, failing to treat these people with the respect and dignity they deserve? These questions are essential to me as I examine my positionality within the wider context and history of sound art. It is important for my work to constantly analyse and contextualise the implications of my practice.
Taking the parabolic microphone to an open public space, a playing field, I was presented with both urban and natural elements that could be woven into the same sonic texture and soundscape. The directionality of the microphone allowed me to both point the microphone skyward and create expansive soundscapes melding these elements, and also to focus in on one or two sound sources to create a more isolated cultural picture within the urban landscape. I remember turning the pre-gain up on the channel and letting the broad textures fill my ears. The sound of a glass bottle being kicked through grass, or rain lashing against a metal bin – the parabolic microphone really provided me with a strong sense of creative agency and an expanded sense of choice in terms of selecting sound sources.