Sonic Spaces: Technological Access to Dominance and Resistance by Nicol s Kisic Aguirre B. Arch, Pontificia Universidad Cat6lica del Per6, 2010 Submitted to the Department of Architecture in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Art, Culture and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2018 Q 2018 NicolAs Kisic Aguirre. All Rights Reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author: Department of Architecture May 11, 2018 Signature redacted Certified By: Gediminas Urbonas Associate Professor of Art, Culture and Technology Thesis Supervisor Accepted By: Signature redacted S heil Kennedy Professor of A hitecture MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Chair of the Department Committee for Graduate Students. OF TECHNOWGY JUN 2 2 2018 1 LIBRARIES ARCHIVES 2 Comittee Thesis Supervisor Gediminas Urbonas Associate Professor of Art, Culture and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Thesis Reader Tobias Putrih Lecturer of Art, Culture and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Thesis Reader Marko Peljhan Professor of Media Arts & Technology University of California Santa Barbara 3 4 Sonic Spaces: Technological Access to Dominance and Resistance by Nicolds Kisic Aguirre Submitted to the Department of Architecture on May 11, 2018 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Art, Culture and Technology Abstract The sonic space can be qualified as a highly relevant layer or dimension to a political notion of public space. The material in use to claim or occupy the sonic space is sound, whose emission or reception by humans largely depends either on biological features or technological resources. Since mostly all humans are provided with equal sonic biological features, it is in the realm of sound technologies where difference appears. Whoever has access to specific sound technologies is able to claim the sonic space in particular ways beyond biological possibilities. If access to sound technologies is restricted, the possibility to claim certain areas of the sonic space will also be restricted. This risks the public and democratic qualities of the sonic space, and leads to its possible partial privatization and control. Artistic production, although far from providing a solution, can play an essential role in addressing this problem. This thesis studies the definitions and connections between public space, sound, technology, anthropology and art. This thesis is produced with the purpose to act as a theoretical framework of the artwork produced by the author in resonance with its claims. Thesis Supervisor: Gediminas Urbonas Title: Associate Professor of Art, Culture and Technology 5 6 Table of Contents Acknowledgernents 8 ......... ..... ............. ......... ............ ........... ................. ........ ............ ........ ........... ........... ..................... ........ ............. ......... ........ Introduction 10 .......................... ......... ............................... ............ ............ .......................................... ....................... ........ ............ .... .................. .................. ....I....... ... ..... ............ ... ..... ... ......... .......... ............ ......... ........ ..................... ...... .......... ... ......... Public Space and Sound ...........I.. ..................... ..................... ............................... ...................... ..................... ..................... ........ ... ......... ......... ... ........ ......... ............ ......... ............ ............ ................. ......... ............. .............................. ......... ............ ......... ........ Public Space 14 ....................... .......... ..................... ...... ........... ....... ................... ..................... ........... .................... .............. ..... ........... Public Space and Politics 17 .................................... ..................... ........ ............ ... ..... ................ ..... ........... ........ ... ......... ............. ..... .......... ............ ................... ............ ......... ......... ............................ .................... The Sonic Space 20 ...................................... ...................... .................... ... ..... ............ ... ..... ... ......... .......... ... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ........ ...................................... ......... Sound and Technology .......................... ......... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................................... ..................... ..................... ........ .............. ........ ................... ..... ........................ ........... I... ................... ....................... ....................... .......... The Sonic Space and Biology 23 ............................................................... ............ ..................... .. ............ ................................................... ...................... The Sonic Space and Technology 28 .......................... ......... ..................... ................... ... ..... ...... ............ ... ......... ......... .................... ... ..... .......... ......... ............ ... ......... ..... ............ ......... ........... ....... .......... .......... ..................... ........ ............ ............. .................. ........ Sonic Spaces (of Dominance) 31 ....................................................................................... ..... .I........... ........ .............. ......... ........... ............. ......... ...................... ...................... ........ ................. ........ ............. ... ................... .................. ............ ......... ......... ................... .... ..... Technology and Art ........................... ..... I... ............. ................... ......I..... ... ..... ............ ... ..... ............. ......... ............. ............ ....... ........... ............ ......... ......... ..................... ... ..... ............ ... ..... ............ ........ ............ ............... ............ ......... ..................... ........ Maker Culture (of Resistance) 35 ..................................................... ................................ ............ ... ..... ............ ......... ........ I............. ............ ... I..... ............. .......... ......... ... .I....... ............. ................. ..................................... ................... .......... An Artistic Approach 40 .......................... ......... ............ ......... ........ ............ ... ..... ............ ... ..... ............ ......... ............ ......... ........ .......... ....... ............ ................... ......... Ethnographic Research and Art 42 ...................I...... .....I... ...........I--...-..,--.-........-....-.. ............. ......... ....I.,.... ......... ... ................. ......... ........ ............ ......... ............ ......... ........ ........-------------- I.. ............ ......... ..................... ........ A Practical Conclusion Field Research? The Speaker Wheels 44 .......................... ......... ...................... .................... ........ ................................. ......... ... ...................... ..... ............ ......... ..................... ........ ............ ... ..... ............ ... ..... ...................... ............ ............. .......................... ...................... .. Bibliography 59 ......................... ....................... ................. ............. ... ..... ............ ... ................... ..................... ......... .................................. ......... ....... ............................. ............... ................ ......... ... ........ Acknowledgements Notes of deep appreciation in this page are not linked to the development of this thesis, but to the adventure of participating in an arts program at MIT for two years. I still can't understand how I ended up here, and it's difficult to understand how lucky I was to land in this city and this program surrounded by a bunch of very special humans. I'm referring above all to the 5 ACT students who with I started the program and I am finishing: Nicolas Consuegra, Nolan Oswald Dennis, Laura Serejo Genes, Jessica Sarah Rinland, and Pedro Zylbersztajn. I have learnt from you more than what I have learnt from any teacher, class, studio or book during these two years. I hope we never break the circle that we created, and I hope we do become a long term relationship of loving, hating and laughing together. Alice Noujaim and M6nica P ez, of course, are also part of this lovely group. I'm also thankful to my little Peruvian community first at Speridakis Terrace and then on Kirkland Street. Home always felt like a good place to be. I'm deeply thankful to my teachers during these two years: Gediminas Urbonas, Tobias Putrih, Ernst Karel, Thorsten Trimpop, Jan St. Werner, Sam Auinger, Renee Green, Florian Hollerweger, Krzysztof Wodiczko and Rasa Smite. The