Hi Volker,
And that "reality" is further filtered by the minds of the listening audience.
There is no reason a nature sound recording need convey a reality at all, the
goal could just as well be that of fantasy.
The perception of an artistic composition is subjective to the artist and the
audience. Whether or not a composition will be perceived as a nature sound
recording or natural soundscape recording, has little do do with the artist
deciding that anthropogenic noise is a real part of the landscape or not.
I understand it makes sense to some artists or audience to widen the definition
of nature sound recordings or natural soundscape recordings, however conversely
I believe a narrowing of the definitions could increase the value,
accessibility, respectability in the forms.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In "Volker Widmann" <> wrote:
>
> I would like to second Davids statement.
>
> We should never forget that nature recording is an ART!
> And as such it is artificial.
> So by transferring any kind of reality onto a whatever medium, this very
> reality is filtered by the artist's mind (and the technical framework of the
> medium).
> So, even the most natural nature recording by definition only is an artifact
> - it is not nature.
> It may convey the feeling of the "real thing" adequately, but if it does so,
> it is due to the skill and "art" and intention of the recordist.
> One could call this cheating, I would call it art.
> So any nature recording is not about reality, but about the recordist's idea
> of reality.
>
> The magnificent Walter Knapp (and others) explained this extensively here on
> the list in the past.
>
> Volker
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:03:03 -0000
> > Von: "Avocet" <>
> > An:
> > Betreff: Re: [Nature Recordists] New Soundscapes & realism
>
> > All art is artifice and involves key decisions of what to include and
> > what to exclude. In the case of wildlife recording, and filming for
> > that matter, including anthropogenic material is a matter of artistic
> > judgement. There are no truly wild places left and no truly wild
> > animals living free from either human encroachment or human
> > protection. Excluding the human element could be regarded as more of a
> > misreprentation than including it, even if it is regarded as
> > irrelevant or perhaps especially if it irrelevant but the truth.
> >
> > Wildlife has to coexist with anthropogenic interference and
> > certainly the fish in the hold of the distant boat didn't have their
> > say in whether or not the boat was irrelevant to their seascape. Is
> > there a distinction between selection by timing, editing, or
> > eliminating non-wildlife sounds by filtering? Anyone with a live mic
> > knows that anthropogenic sounds are almost everywhere, so is it not
> > more honest to portray the wildlife as having to live with these
> > sounds, including the train roaring through their landscape? I'll tell
> > you what Mark's train did for me - it gave me a vivid sound image
> > portrait of that bit of countryside.
> >
> > The recent BBC series 'Frozen Planet' came in for criticism for not
> > captioning a polar bear sequence which included shots of a newborn cub
> > in captivity. An edited film uses artifice from start to finish, often
> > cutting together sequences spaced widely in location and in time. Take
> > notice of coat patterns in films portraying the life of one supposedly
> > singular animal. The word "cheating" is often used by filmmakers
> > because that is how interesting films are put together. I can usually
> > tell which sounds have been dubbed on later and which were recorded
> > sync, like birds in the tops of trees on a very long lens with
> > expertly dubbed matching close sound. Adventure documentaries are
> > prone to showing a heroic figure battling on alone against the odds,
> > not drawing attention to the fact that he or she is obviously being
> > followed by a film crew. A series on flight currently being shown here
> > uses trained birds filmed from a microlite to link sequences.
> >
> > I see no harm in some occasional honest realism, like
> > including distant motors or close trains which would still
> > have been part of the "natural" soundscape even if edited
> > out.
> >
> > It's an interesting debate and it brings to mind a film my
> > wife set up in China about integrated agriculture and the good
> > use the Chinese were making of some long-ravaged parts of
> > their land. However the Tiananmen Square massacre intervened
> > between shooting and cutting, and a very different film got
> > shown using the same shot footage. Which was truest?
> >
> > David
> >
> > David Brinicombe
> > North Devon, UK
> > Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
> >
>
> --
> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
>
|