He is one of the author of the book In The Field that I am reading at the moment. I was also excited to his lecture. However, Im not really into his practice.
He is very good sound scholar which he is the member of CRiSAP. Other than academic world, his artistic practice is ‘not input’ field recording. His approach to field work is field notes. It is like sonic ethnography which he would drop down the note instantly. His approach is interesting which I haven’t seen any of field recording (or is it still recording?) approach like hime. He also suggest that field note is awkward, partial, mistaken, oblique. His approach are more focus on written language. However, for myself, I feel like the reason why I like to use sound is because a lot of feeling and thought can’t be express through language, in this case, is written words. I understand the power of language, which by using field note, the field work would be easy since we don’t need those technology (field recorder, mic, etc) and the problem of those things other than mobility is when we record outside, people around us would act differently since they saw a big microphones in front of them. Field note can prevent that. In the audience point of view, the descriptive language of sonic environment in the field create a lot of spaces for them to imagine those sounds.