Volume 2/1 (2025) 1

Exploration-Collection-Assemblage
Proposal for a Mediation of Place through
Sound Creation
Simon Chioinia*, Myriam Boucherb°
a
Faculté de musique, Université de Montréal, QC, Canada
b
Faculté de musique, Université de Montréal, QC, Canada
*
Correspondence: [email protected]
°
Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract
Since the 1970s, ecological thinking has inspired artists and researchers to explore the
sonic dimension of experience and our interactions with the environment. In electro-
acoustic music and sound art, acoustic ecology has been a precursor to contemporary
issues, focusing on the sonic aspect of our relationship to the world. However, some artist-
researchers have expanded this field by moving beyond the preservation of natural sound-
scapes, coining the term ‘ecology of sound’ and criticizing the notion of soundscape by
emphasizing its limitation in relation to the lived experience of landscape. Their work ex-
amines the interaction between sound, environment, society, and the individual, highlight-
ing sound’s connection with other senses and its social meaning. In this context, this arti-
cle presents a sound creation and music composition methodology – exploration-collec-
tion-assemblage – focused on site specific practices, using the Sound + Place workshops
as a case study.

Depuis les années 1970, la pensée écologique inspire artistes et chercheur·e·s à explorer
la dimension sonore de l’expérience ainsi que nos interactions avec l’environnement. Dans
la musique électroacoustique et l’art sonore, l’écologie sonore a précédé certaines
problématiques contemporaines, en se concentrant sur l’aspect sonore de notre relation
au monde. Toutefois, certain·e·s artistes-chercheur·e·s ont élargi ce champ en allant au-
delà de la préservation des paysages sonores naturels, en introduisant la notion d’écologie
du son et en critiquant celle de paysage sonore, en soulignant notamment ses limites face
à l’expérience vécue du paysage. Leurs travaux interrogent l’interaction entre le son,
l’environnement, la société et les individus, en mettant en lumière les liens du sonore avec

This paper is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To
read the license text, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Parts of an article may be published under
a different license. If this is the case, these parts are clearly marked as such.
ISSN: 2943-6109 DOI: 10.71228/ijmm.2025.21
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

les autres sens ainsi que sa portée sociale. Dans ce contexte, cet article présente une
méthodologie de création sonore et de composition musicale — exploration-collecte-
assemblage — centrée sur des pratiques in situ, en s’appuyant sur les ateliers Sound +
Lieu comme étude de cas.

Seit den 1970er-Jahren inspiriert ökologisches Denken Künstler_innen und

Wissenschaftler_innen dazu, die klangliche Dimension von Erfahrungen sowie unsere
Wechselwirkungen mit der Umwelt zu erforschen. In der elektroakustischen Musik und
Klangkunst war die Acoustic Ecology ein Vorläufer heutiger Themenstellungen, indem sie
den Fokus auf die klangliche Seite unserer Beziehung zur Welt legte. Einige künstlerisch
Forschende haben dieses Feld jedoch erweitert, indem sie über den Erhalt natürlicher
Klanglandschaften hinausgingen. Sie prägten den Begriff der Ecology of Sound und
kritisierten die Vorstellung eines Soundscape, da sie dessen Begrenztheit im Hinblick auf
die gelebte Erfahrung von Landschaft betonen. Ihre Arbeiten untersuchen das
Zusammenspiel von Klang, Umwelt, Gesellschaft und Individuum und heben dabei die
Verbindung des Klangs zu anderen Sinnen sowie seine soziale Bedeutung hervor. In
diesem Kontext stellt der vorliegende Beitrag eine Methode der Klanggestaltung und
Komposition vor – Exploration–Sammlung–Assemblage – die auf ortsspezifischen
Praktiken basiert. Als Fallbeispiel dienen die Workshops Sound + Place.

Keywords
sound art, electroacoustic music, composition, ecology, mediation

Introduction
Since the 1970s, ecological thinking has led many artists and researchers to question
the sound dimension of experience and of our interactions with the natural world. For
electroacoustic music and sound art, the acoustic ecology movement (Schafer 1977;
Truax 1978; Westerkamp 2002) is a precursor to current issues. Today, acoustic ecology
remains influential in electroacoustic music and sound art, drawing attention to the
sonic register of our relationship to the world. However, some artist-researchers have
recently explored contemporary musical practices associated with ecology, thereby ex-
panding their scope beyond a focus on listening and the preservation of natural sound
environments. Furthermore, some researchers criticize the notion of soundscape by
emphasizing its limitation in relation to the lived experience of landscape (Abram 1996;
Ingold 1993, 2021). These reflections integrate a broader definition of sound ecology,
one that is more inclusive of the human presence and affirms the primacy of the event
over its representation. To distance themselves from early considerations of acoustic
ecology, some adopt the term ‘ecology of sound’1 (Collectif AIMEE 2017; Freychet 2022;

1
The term proposed in French is écologie du son, which should not be confused with ‘acoustic
ecology’.
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 3

Solomos et al. 2016). The ecology of sound, based on the ecosophy of Félix Guattari
(1989), examines sound in its relationship to the environment, to society and the indi-
vidual. It highlights the interaction of sound with other senses, the properties of the
places where it is produced and the social meanings it evokes. As a result, reflection on
sound composition and creation invites us to rethink our relationship to the environ-
ment, to others and to our inner self. More specifically, it focuses on how we resonate
with specific places. In that regard, the present article proposes a sound and music com-
position methodology in which the artistic process is rooted in the mediation of specific
places. It aims to examine our relationship with the environment and to refine a new
sense of attention by using sound as a medium of presence and deeper connection.
This methodology, referred to as exploration-collection-assemblage, is founded on
the development of a relationship with a given place, with the other, and through one’s
own subjectivity. Based on the experiments carried out as part of the Sound + Place2
workshops, we hypothesize that participatory and specific place composition method-
ologies can create musical experiences that establish a link between a given place, art-
ists and an audience. One of the aims is to reweave sensitive links to rediscover the
courage, involvement and solidarity needed to change our lives and take action to care
for the planet. Finally, possible applications for this methodology will be suggested, both
within the domain of the arts and for the public.

Theoretical framework

Socio-ecological transition: new relational approaches

According to many thinkers, the current climate crisis invites us to rethink our relation-
ships with nature and with the other-than-human, a crucial process in the pursuit of an
egalitarian world, respectful of all living things. It is clear today that our lifestyles are
at the root of many of the planet’s disturbances, a fact made explicit by the annual en-
vironmental reports of the major climate organizations. This is why some authors refer
to the Anthropocene (Groth and Schulze 2020), the Capitalocene (Bourriaud 2021) or the
Plantationocene (Haraway 2015) to describe the current era, a period in which human
activities are producing global changes, attributed more specifically to Western capital-
ist and colonial society. But when scientific observation calls for a change in our life-
styles, it is the very essence of our relationship with nature that may be called into ques-
tion. At present, this relationship is still often based on a nature-culture dichotomy,
placing humans in a position of domination over their environment. As French sociol-
ogist Bruno Latour points out:
In the Western tradition, most definitions of humanity in effect emphasize how much it
distinguishes itself from nature. This is often expressed through the concepts of ‘cul-
ture’, ‘society’, or ‘civilization’. Therefore, whenever one seeks to ‘bring humans closer
to nature’, one is hindered by the objection that humans are primarily, or additionally,

2
The original appellation is in French: Son + Lieu.
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

cultural beings who must escape from or, at the very least, distinguish themselves from
nature3. (Latour 2015, 24)

The critical perspectives on modernity that philosophy offers demonstrate how science
has based its knowledge and politics on a relationship of dominance over nature. This
relationship is part of a nature-culture dualism that has yet to be deconstructed (Hara-
way 1988; Latour 2010). Among contemporary issues, climate change stands out as a
complex example of a problem requiring a plural approach. In this sense, the philoso-
pher of science Isabelle Stengers evokes the challenge of a political ecology: “The idea,
to put it succinctly, of a public, collective production of knowledge relating to situations
that no particular expertise alone can suffice to define, and which require the active,
objectifying, propositional and legitimate presence of all those who are ‘concerned’4”
(Stengers 2007, 54). In a world where relationships with the more-than-human must be
rebuilt, the presence of otherness, whatever its nature, needs to be considered. The mo-
tives for slowing down and resisting the ideals of universal progress and the common
good serve to welcome the presence of the other, both human and more-than-human,
into this discourse.
Concurrently, the question of environmental perception, brought to light by anthro-
pologists and ecologists, provides an insight into the lived experience of our relation-
ship with nature. Authors such as Tim Ingold and David Abram draw on the founda-
tions of phenomenology to describe our interactions with the world in a sensitive, situ-
ated mode. The notions of intersubjectivity, empathy, reciprocity and participation pro-
vide an evocative vocabulary for designing works that seek to create shared relation-
ships with the environment. In his book The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Lan-
guage in a More-Than-Human World, Abram explains:

It may be that the new ‘environmental ethic’ toward which so many environmental phi-
losophers aspire – an ethic that would lead us to respect and heed not only the lives of
our fellow humans, but also the life and well-being of the rest of nature – will primarily
come into existence not through the logical elucidation of new philosophical principles
and legislative structures, but through a renewed attentiveness to this perceptual di-
mension that underlies all our logics, through a rejuvenation of our carnal, sensorial
empathy with the living land that sustains us. (Abram 1996, 50)

Abram’s sensory register provides a foundation for our relationship to the world, pro-
vided we pay attention to it. In this regard, our perspective on materiality itself needs
to be reconsidered. In Vibrant Matter, political scientist Jane Bennett describes the

3
Original text: “Dans la tradition occidentale, en effet, la plupart des définitions de l’humain
soulignent à quel point il se distingue de la nature. C’est ce que l’on veut exprimer, le plus
souvent, par la notion de ‘culture’, de ‘société’ ou de ‘civilisation’. Par conséquent, à chaque fois
que l’on voudra ‘rapprocher l’humain de la nature’, on va s’en trouver empêché par l’objection
que l’humain est avant tout, ou qu’il est aussi, un être culturel qui doit échapper à ou, en tout
cas, se distinguer de la nature.”
4
Original text: “l’idée, pour parler vite, d’une production publique, collective de savoirs autour
de situations qu’aucune expertise particulière ne peut suffire à définir, et qui demandent la
présence légitime active, objectivante, proposante, de tous ceux qui sont ‘concernés’”.
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 5

agency of matter, whether organic or inorganic, animate or inanimate, particularly

when it comes to assemblages:
Assemblages are ad hoc groupings of diverse elements, of vibrant materials of sorts …
Assemblages are not governed by any central head … The effects generated by an as-
semblage are, rather, emergent properties, emergent in that their ability to make some-
thing happen […] is distinct from the sum of the vital force of each materiality consid-
ered alone. (Bennett 2010, 23-25)

In this systemic description, matter is regarded not as inert and utilitarian, but rather
as capable of affecting its environment and the course of time. These assemblages are
manifest in the processes by which animate and inanimate domains interact and influ-
ence each other across multiple temporalities – temporalities that frequently extend
beyond quotidian life: meteorological, geological, cosmological, and so on. For her part,
anthropologist Anna Tsing offers a compelling exposition of the concept of assemblage,
in which entities are interwoven in a complex web of relationships:
Thinking through assemblage urges us to ask: How do gatherings sometimes become
‘happenings’, that is, greater than the sum of their parts? If history without progress is
indeterminate and multidirectional, might assemblages show us its possibilities? (Tsing
2015, 23)

One answer is contamination. We are contaminated by our encounters; they change

who we are as we make way for others. As contamination changes world-making pro-
jects, mutual worlds – and new directions – may emerge. (ibid., 27)

The relational and situational methodology presented in this article is characterized by

the central themes of assemblages, encounters with otherness, and emergence. This ap-
proach is congruent with the concept of fostering or reinforcing intimate connections
with our environments. Engaging with our surroundings can then be regarded as a
form of actively participating in assemblage. In this process, sound, listening, and per-
formance serve as mediating factors.
The humanities, in their manifold forms, possess the capacity to interrogate our re-
lationship with the world and underscore the potential for humans to reimagine their
relationship with their environment. A relational approach is thus put forward,
grounded in the sensitive experience that the arts can express. In this respect, music
and sound creation offer a distinct framework, as evidenced by research on the ecology
of sound.

Ecology of sound: the specificity of sound in the sensory landscape

In recent years, a growing body of researchers and artists, including Roberto Barbanti,
Pascale Critton, Augustino Di Scipio, Guillaume Loizillon, and Makis Solomos, have ex-
amined contemporary musical practices in relation to the environment. These endeav-
ors have extended the current discourse beyond preservationist thinking, character-
ized by the conservation of sound environments, or narrative thinking, exemplified by
the presentation of scientific data or facts through artistic mediums. Their work repre-
sents a continuation of the historical contribution of the acoustic ecology movement,
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

which laid the foundation for the study of soundscapes. To distinguish themselves from
these earlier considerations, which focused more on the representation and aesthetics
of nature, these authors adopt the term ‘ecology of sound’. This distinction marks a con-
ceptual shift, whereby sound is perceived not as a mode of representation, but as an
event inherent to the experience of the landscape.
As a field of study, the ecology of sound is based on philosopher Félix Guattari’s
notion of ecosophy. In his essay The Three Ecologies (1989), the thinker demonstrates
the importance of bringing together the environmental, social and subjective dimen-
sions of our relationship to the world, in order to respond to contemporary issues such
as the predicted ecological imbalances. Consequently, scholars in the field of the ecology
of sound seek to delineate the auditory dimension in its relationship to the environ-
ment, the collective, and the individual. In these terms, thinking about the ecology of
sound requires us to consider the complete relationship of sound to its environment, its
cultural context and subjectivity. Sound is displayed in the entirety of what it awakens
in perception, in interaction with the other senses, with the location of its dissemina-
tion, through its codes and social meanings and through what it evokes in the imagina-
tion. From this emerges a web of relationships to be redefined, which art in general can
express in its ability to convey an experience at odds with the everyday (Lacey 2020).
In this sense, the composer Augustino Di Scipio advocates a situational and relational
approach to practice, as opposed to the creation of hermetic cultural objects: “The crit-
ical perspectives recalled here point, on the whole, to the need to move from an art of
recording, manipulation and representation, to an art of participation, events and
presences”5 (Di Scipio 2017, 64). Indeed, art has the capacity to offer moments of en-
gagement in the present, wherein the relationship with place is imprinted on individual
experience.
The ecology of sound thus departs from the approaches of acoustic ecology artists
in terms of listening, by investigating practices that more closely involve the active role
of humans in their environment. Reflecting on musical creation in this sense means
reconsidering our relationship to the environment, and thus studying our relationship
to space, landscape and territory. Moreover, conventional forms of presentation are
themselves being revisited to make artistic creation a form of direct engagement. Com-
positional processes are then envisaged in a variety of creative environments, including
urban, industrial, commercial and natural contexts. This approach aims to re-examine
our relationship with the environments that surround us in a sensitive, situated mode,
making music and sound creation a mediation between artists, audiences and places. It
raises the question of understanding different ways of paying attention to our sur-
roundings and to otherness, starting from sound’s privileged relationship to space and
as a medium of presence.

5
Original text: “Les perspectives critiques rappelées ici signalent, dans l’ensemble, la nécessité
de passer d’un art d’enregistrement, de manipulation et de représentation, à un art de
participation, d’événements et de présences.”
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 7

The sonic dimension of landscape

Two of Ingold’s essays evoke the role of sound in our relationship to the world, and in
what will be referred to here as landscape. First, The Temporality of the Landscape de-
fines landscape as the world as it is known to its occupants: “In short, landscape is the
world as it is known to those who dwell therein, who inhabit its places and journey
along the paths connecting them” (1993, 156). According to the author, a symbolic rep-
resentation of the landscape conveys a limited version of its experience. In Four Objec-
tions to the Concept of Soundscape, Ingold then challenges the assumed materiality of
the soundscape as conceived through the medium of recording (2021, 168-171). By iso-
lating the act of listening, particularly through recording techniques, sound is decon-
textualized and dissociated from the experience. Consequently, Ingold proposes a defi-
nition of sound as the medium of listening, as opposed to its object, and advocates for a
multisensory approach that acknowledges the interaction of the senses in perception.
The landscape is not static; rather, it is a dynamic and evolving environment that is co-
created and influenced by its occupants and participants. Its temporality does not fol-
low a chronological order, but an interweaving of interdependent rhythms (geological,
seasonal, meteorological, human and others). In this sense, the development of a rela-
tionship with the landscape can be considered a form of participation in its arrange-
ment. Although the recorded soundscape accentuates the aural dimension of our envi-
ronment, it only partially restores its full experientiality, which requires active immer-
sion in the landscape. According to this conception, the landscape, or more generally
the environment, is perceived as constituted by relationships and activities. In the con-
text of the climate crisis, Ingold’s observation is of significant relevance: “Humans are
not only shapers of the land’s surface; they are rather entangled in it, and their life
constitutes an ecological and geological whole with the Earth and its other-than-human
inhabitants” (Gruppuso and Whitehouse 2020, 595). The notion of environmental
awareness may be enhanced through direct engagement with the processes that consti-
tute the environment itself. The subject of this commitment lies not in the image of na-
ture, but in its perpetual becoming: an event.
Like Ingold, composer François Bonnet and Gérard Pelé focus on the detachment
produced by the symbolic dimension of the recorded soundscape, disembodied in rela-
tion to a lived experience (Bonnet and Pelé 2016). To contextualize their argument, it is
necessary to recall Murray Schafer’s proposal of the term ‘schizophony’. This word was
suggested to describe the loss of causality of sound when listening to a recording
(Schafer 1977). For Bonnet and Pelé, “to accept schizophony is, in a way, to acknowledge
the autonomy of auditory experience, to assume the notion of soundscape as a separate,
independent element”6 (2016, 9). Thus, the soundscape can only be an inadequate re-
production of the lived experience, as it does not account for all its interrelated dimen-
sions.
In other words, the sound dimension cannot easily be detached from our perception
of the environment without reifying the landscape. Rather, Ingold proposes that we

6
Original text: “accepter la schizophonie, c’est d’une certaine manière prendre acte de
l’autonomie de l’expérience auditive, c’est assumer la notion de soundscape, en tant qu’élément
séparé, indépendant.”
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

consider sound as the medium that affirms the presence of the other alongside us. After
all, isn’t sound the carrier wave of distant movement? Is it not the vibration produced
by the other, whatever its nature? In this sense, listening has the particularity of open-
ing us up to the multiple presences surrounding us, beyond origin and distance. Acting
and producing sound, detecting diverse presences in listening, are part of our very in-
timate connection with the world around us, and play a role in building a relationship
with the landscape.

Proposed methodology: exploration-collection-assemblage

The methodology proposed here is rooted in the observation that the human relation-
ship with the world needs re-definition. A potential avenue for achieving this could be
found in our intimate, sensitive experience of the world, which is founded upon per-
ception. Art has the capacity to influence this experience through its access to the sen-
sitive register. Music and sound creation, through listening and the medium of sound,
offer the potential to open to otherness and to assert one’s presence in the landscape.
In this paradigm, creation is conceived as an ongoing process, rather than an end in
itself. Thinking about musical creation in these terms means re-evaluating our tradi-
tional practices. To that end, the proposed idea is to directly move this process to within
different environments, or specific places, with the objective of transforming creation
into an act of participation: an event, an assemblage.
Through experience in the field, this connection has taken the form of a flexible
methodology that can be adapted to a variety of contexts. In its simplicity, it reminds us
that building new relationships is a matter of putting things into action, and that art
easily plays this mediating role. The proposed method is composed of three phases –
exploration, collection, and assemblage – for establishing relationships through sound
creation. It consists of an ephemeral, spontaneous creative process centered on the in-
teractions between the site, its constituents and the participants.

Exploration: walking as reconnaissance

Exploring and discovering a relationship with a place means first and foremost step-
ping inside it. The tradition of sound walks, originating with pioneers such as Hildegard
Westerkamp, provides a strategy for exploring a place through guided listening. This
activity asks participants to concentrate on their listening, in order to better grasp the
relationship between sound and place. Walking can take many forms, from guided lis-
tening to augmented experience with a soundtrack added through headphones. Varia-
tions on the theme of walking are a field of study in themselves, offering multiple strat-
egies for deepening creative strategies within an ecology of sound (Biserna 2022a,
2022b). As we walk, our attention shifts from one point to another. Perspectives con-
stantly change, revealing new viewing angles and listening points in the surrounding
environment. The exploration stage thus constitutes a form of reconnaissance, not with
a view to appropriation, but in the sense given by the philosopher Baptiste Morizot
(2023): a recognition of our relations to the more-than-human, an orientation, discov-
ery, perception and appreciation of the places in which we invest our attention. The
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 9

exploration stage thus passes through two phases: the experience of an atmosphere, and
orientation through walking.
The atmosphere is at the forefront of exploration, as it lies at the basis of our per-
ception of a place: “Perception is basically the manner in which one is bodily present
for something or someone or one’s bodily state in an environment. The primary ‘object’
of perception is atmospheres.” (Böhme 1993, 125). Above all, to penetrate a place means
to penetrate its atmosphere. From the outset, the deep forest doesn’t offer the same at-
mosphere as the wasteland. The atmosphere, or ambiance – indivisible, immediate, om-
nipresent and diffuse (Thibaud 2002) – simultaneously affects all the senses. From then
on, the whole body is engaged in the experience of place through its multisensory open-
ness (Kazig and Masson 2015). Capturing the ambiance of a place and the way it affects
us enables us to engage with it, to better describe the transformation established be-
tween first impressions and final perception.

Collection: matter and sensations

Traditionally, matter is considered a resource made available to the artist. In the pro-
posed methodology, collection is intended more as a form of resonance with the site.
What elements draw our attention? How does the site transform the way we move?
What temporalities are intertwined? By individually and collectively selecting the com-
ponents that come to their attention, participants gradually define the relationship that
unites them with a specific place. Without appropriating these elements, it is more a
question of activating them, of making these materials and impressions speak in an
ephemeral assemblage. Following the exploration stage, the collection phase then in-
cludes concrete materials such as found objects or captured elements (video recordings,
photographs, sound recordings). On a subjective level, it also implies impressions, feel-
ings, noted down and drawn, captured in gestures and formulated in a general concep-
tion of space.

Assemblage: manifestation of a relationship

The final phase, called assemblage, is the manifestation of the relationship. The bringing
together of materials and sensitive postures, derived from the collection phase, is the
first step in the process of sharing experiences of the place and articulating individual
and collective human relationships with the environment. This act of sharing marks the
intersubjective part of the experience and validates a perception that is both sensual
and affective, unified by the multiple perspectives owned by the individuals. The sound
dimension is privileged, given the distinctive role of sound in perception7. To achieve
this, the assemblage relies on sound performance, and sound implementation or instal-
lation. This can take many forms, since the assemblage is spontaneous and ephemeral.
Gathering found objects, amplifying musical gestures, or broadcasting a recording in
an improvised sound system are all part of what comes closer to a creative intervention

7
It is worth noting how sound, as a vibrational phenomenon, engages both haptic and auditory
perception. In this sense, soundmaking is intrinsically tied to movement and embodied
presence.
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

in place. This action brings the participants and the site together, in what will have
marked their experience.
The proposed exploration-collection-assemblage methodology thus seeks to estab-
lish a concrete relational process, putting practice at the forefront of an encounter. It
provides interaction tools both for artists and the public, who can use this experience
to re-examine their relation to the environment and the places that surround them. Ul-
timately, this methodology can be integrated into a large-scale creative musical ap-
proach, as well as into a process of mediation through music and sound creation. The
subsequent case study exemplifies the implementation of the approach within a work-
shop setting.

Case study: Sound + Place co-creation workshops

The Sound + Place co-creation workshop series was initiated with the aim of extending
the methodology of exploration-collection-assemblage to a site-specific context and
spontaneous co-creation. A total of ten workshops were held between October 2023 and
May 20248. The workshops were presented as creative and collaborative exploration
sessions in various urban environments in Montreal (Quebec, Canada), through which
particular attention was given to found sounds, images, objects, gestures and sensa-
tions, with the aim of realizing spontaneous and collective creative experiences. Lasting
approximately three hours, they followed a malleable order, often combining a brief
presentation and contextualization, a sound walk, a period of exploration and material
collection, the sharing of discoveries and assemblage into a documented ephemeral
work. Emphasis was placed on the project’s experimental and collaborative process.
The call for participation went out to artist networks: digital music students at the
Université de Montréal and members of the Eastern Bloc artist-run center. It was aimed
at anyone wishing to take part in a collective artistic creation activity related to ecology
and the environment. A basic knowledge of audiovisual recording techniques was rec-
ommended, but not mandatory. In all, sixteen people took part in various workshops at
least once. Most had an advanced knowledge of sound art, but a few came from other
artistic disciplines, such as dance, performance arts and visual arts.
Despite the existence of a general structure for the workshops, there was always a
degree of flexibility, in accordance with the needs and suggestions of the group. This
open-ended approach enabled each participant to direct the co-creation process accord-
ing to their own desires and needs, as well as in relation to the elements encountered
in the field. In this sense, it made the group an ephemeral autonomous collective. Peri-
ods of individual exploration sometimes turned into collective experimentations or rig-
orous sound recording sessions. Final performances took the form of sound installa-
tions, musical performances or action-performances, integrating elements from the
field. Some groups engaged in lengthy feedback sessions. On each occasion, the very act

8
Documentation of workshop performances can be found on the author’s website, Chioini, S.
(q.v.). Ateliers de co-création Son + Lieu. S. Chioini. chioini.com/Ateliers (accessed December 28,
2024).
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 11

of assembling found elements was an integral part of the performance. Each occasion
proved unique, reflecting the places explored and the diversity of the participants’ cre-
ative approaches.
The experimental dimension of the workshops was facilitated using portable elec-
tronic devices. In a way, the workshops served to divert the studio’s usual equipment
into a field context. Four wireless speakers, a portable battery, a camera, microphones
and recorders were always made available. In addition to the equipment brought along
by the participants – recorders, sensors, effects pedals, synthesizers and other sounding
objects – these technologies made it possible to tackle aspects of electroacoustic compo-
sition such as spatialization and sound processing, but in a contextual and spontaneous
way.
Most of the locations explored were chosen for their ability to demonstrate a rela-
tionship between wilderness and urbanity. For example, the vacant lots, alleyways and
railroad sidings of an industrial zone in the Chabanel neighborhood proved particu-
larly suitable for exploration. However, during the exploratory phase, the absence of
anthropogenic activity revealed other presences: waste, the distant sounds of transport,
wild vegetation, a few birds. By focusing on the surrounding elements, these constitu-
ents effectively revealed their singular company. While exploration and collection al-
lowed one to develop an attention to place, direct action in the landscape materialised
a relationship in the form of assemblage. The rupture provoked by creation, through
installation (ephemeral scenography) or performance (spontaneous ritual), physically
manifested this new link. The creative result demonstrated the participatory aspect of
the landscape’s constitution.
The electronic devices at hand enabled participants to interact rapidly with their
environment. The deployment of multiple stand-alone loudspeakers offered the oppor-
tunity to deposit sound recordings in the space. Microphones and sensors provided the
possibility of amplifying the sound of live manipulations. It was imperative that the
equipment available should be easily transportable, installable and operable.
Through the workshops, each participant discovered unique facets of the surround-
ings and proposed singular ways of interacting with them. In this way, the recognition
of space extended to other aspects that might have been overlooked in a solitary explo-
ration. This can potentially be explained by the empathy generated by the presence of
others. Sharing one’s relationship with a place can create an even greater sense of at-
tachment. Doesn’t the presence of others guarantee the authenticity of our experience
of the world? Doesn’t it reinforce a sense of resonance within our experience? This is
what Husserl was already pointing out in the early phases of phenomenology (Abram
2013). In Une histoire d’empathie, Jacques Hochmann explains how Husserl first notices
that the phenomenological experience of the surrounding world (as intention, as a pure
phenomenon of consciousness) always contains something more than perceived:

[...] among the categories of the world around me, some are made up of inanimate ob-
jects, others of animalia. Among these animalia which, like me, have a body inhabited
by intentions, with limbs that move and touch, eyes that see, there are other humans,
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

alter egos, realities in flesh and bone, of which I am only the analogue, but whose move-
ments stand out against a background of experience different from my bodily experi-
ence. It is this experience of the otherness of the similar which tears me away from
solipsism and leads me to what Husserl calls “transcendental intersubjectivity”… And it
is this primary intersubjectivity, towards which empathy is only a means of access,
which constitutes objectivity, in an agreement of points of view of the world which es-
tablishes the certainty of the existence of this world and the possibility of its knowledge9.
(Hochmann 2012, paragr. 12)

In this way, the Sound + Place workshops show a version of an exploration-collection-

assemblage approach to which the dimension of sharing is added. Indeed, the structure
of the workshops functions like a ritual: sound walk (opening), exploration, collection
and sharing (heart), then assemblage (closing). By exploring these places through sound
art, an activity usually reserved for the space of cultural institutions, a break is made in
our daily lives and in our perception of these environments, and this break marks, in
memory, a new relationship.

Future applications
In the light of the proposed methodology, it is worth noting several perspectives for
future applications. Firstly, it is important to observe that the presented workshops
were mainly aimed at artists who were well versed in sound creation and digital pro-
duction methods. As a result, the exploration-collection-assemblage process was able to
focus directly on interactions with the site, without the need for an introduction to re-
cording techniques or the use of amplification. A future application which brings to-
gether a non-initiated public should include a tutoring stage and more sustained super-
vision of the group, in order to enable the activity. It would be interesting to observe
the potential effect of this approach on such a group. Would the novelty of the sound
experience have a greater potential to affect them?
Secondly, what effect might the exploration-collection-assemblage approach have
on the artists involved in the activities? Considering the traditional frameworks of mu-
sical creation, it seems safe to assume that the methodology employed will open new
fields of creation rooted in a relational and situational approach, with various outcomes
for different artists. According to the participatory nature of this approach, it would
also be interesting to organize experiences in more crowded locations, such as a down-
town area, a rural place, or a shopping center. This would allow for the study of the

9
Original text: “Or, parmi les catégories du monde qui m’entoure, certaines sont formées
d’objets inanimés, d’autres d’animalia. Parmi ces animalia qui disposent, comme moi, d’un corps
habité d’intentions, avec des membres qui se meuvent et qui touchent, des yeux qui voient, il y
a les autres humains, les alter ego, des réalités en chair et en os, dont je ne suis que l’analogon,
mais dont les mouvements se détachent sur un fond d’expérience différent de mon expérience
corporelle. C’est cette expérience de l’altérité du semblable qui m’arrache au solipsisme et me
conduit à ce que Husserl appelle ‘l’intersubjectivité transcendantale’… Et c’est cette
intersubjectivité première, vers laquelle l’empathie n’est qu’un moyen d’accès, qui constitue
l’objectivité, dans un accord de points de vue sur le monde qui fonde la certitude de l’existence
de ce monde et la possibilité de sa connaissance.”
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 13

intertwining of participants and the audience – the members of which are also partici-
pating to the constitution of a place. In any case, the main interest of the approach po-
tentially lies in its capacity to create new relationships – with the place, between people,
within our distinct subjectivities. By creating a shared experience of exploration, man-
ifested in a performance, participants create the collective narrative of their encoun-
ters. For the uninitiated, it may be the discovery of an unsuspected, sensitive world. For
musician-artists, it opens the way to new participatory practices. In this sense, this
methodology fits into the sphere of mediation, turning it into a form of collective crea-
tion.

Conclusion
We can conclude that the proposed exploration-collection-assemblage methodology
seeks to initiate a public, comprising professional and non-professional artists alike,
into the relational dimensions of sound creation. This approach aims to establish a com-
mitted link between the artist and his or her environment, while bringing people to-
gether around the act of creation and encouraging their participation in this exchange
ecosystem. The simplicity of this approach has the potential to extend into everyday
life, to rethink our ways of existing, exploring, sharing and participating. For the arts,
the socio-ecological crisis is perhaps a reminder of the need for collective expression.
Music offers us the capacity to resonate, to live a shared experience through sound. By
taking a step in this direction, we can create together, and guide the current transition
towards a creative process of openness and rediscovery.

Funding Information
This article is part of the funded project “Son, écologie et environnement: explorer la création
sonore par la participation” (DOI: 10.69777/369310).

References
Abram, David. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-
Human World. 1st Vintage books ed. New York: Vintage Books.
Barbanti, Roberto. 2023. Les sonorités du monde — De l’écologie sonore à l’écosophie so-
nore. Dijon: Les presses du reel.
Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke Uni-
versity Press.
Biserna, Elena. 2022a. Going Out: Walking, Listening, Soundmaking. Brusels: Umland.
———. 2022b. Walking from Scores: An Anthology of Text and Graphic Scores to Be Used
While Walking. Dijon: Les presses du réel.
Böhme, Gernot. 1993. “Atmosphere as the Fundamental Concept of a New Aesthetics”.
Thesis Eleven 36, no. 1: 113-126. DOI: 10.1177/072551369303600107.
Chioini, Boucher – Exploration-collection-assemblage

Bonnet, François, and Gérard L. Pelé. 2016. “Dire-entendre”. In Musique et écologies du

son, edited by Makis Solomos, Roberto Barbanti, Guillaume Loizillon, Kostas
Paparrigopoulos, and Carmen Pardo Salgado, 55-64. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2021. Inclusions : esthétique du capitalocène. 1re édition. Paris: PUF.
Chioini, Simon. n.d. “Ateliers de Cocréation Son + Lieu”. Accessed December 28, 2024.
chioini.com.
Collectif AIMEE. 2017. Transitions des arts, transitions esthétiques: processus de
subjectivation et des-croissances: actes du colloque organisé par MUSIDANCE et
TEAMeD-AIAC, Université Paris-8, 5. 6, 7 mars 2015, Musée d’art et d’histoire de
Saint-Denis, Université Paris-8, Institut national d’histoire de l’art. Collection
Musique-philosophie. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Di Scipio, Agostino. 2017. “Pratiques musicales, technologies contemporaines, économie
de moyens. Quelques remarques générales”. In Transitions des arts, transitions
esthétiques, edited by Makis Solomos, 57-74. Musique philosophie. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Freychet, Antoine. 2022. Démarches artistiques et préoccupations écologiques: l’écoute
dans l’écologie Sonore. Collection Musique-Philosophie. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Groth, Sanne Krogh, and Holger Schulze. 2020. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sound Art.
New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gruppuso, Paolo, and Andrew Whitehouse. 2020. “Exploring Taskscapes: An introduc-
tion”. Social Anthropology 28, no. 3: 588-597. DOI: 10.1111/1469-8676.12789.
Guattari, Félix. 1989. Les trois écologies. Paris: Galilée.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and
the Privilege of Partial Perspective”. Feminist Studies 14, no. 3: 575. DOI:
10.2307/3178066.
———. 2015. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin”.
Environmental Humanities 6, no. 1: 159-65. DOI: 10.1215/22011919-3615934.
Hochmann, Jacques. 2015. “Une histoire de l’empathie”. In L’empathie au carrefour des
sciences et de la clinique, edited by Michel Botbol, Antoine Besse, and Nicole
Garret-Gloanec, 13-46. DOI: 10.3917/jle.botbo.2015.01.0013.
Ingold, Tim. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape”. World Archaeology 25, no. 2:
152-74.
———. 2021. “Four Objections to the Concept of Soundscape”. In Being Alive: Essays on
Movement, Knowledge and Description, 168-72. London: Routledge.
Kazig, Rainer, and Damien Masson. 2015. “L’ambiance comme concept de la géographie
culturelle francophone: défis et perspectives”. Géographie et Cultures, 93-94.
DOI: 10.4000/gc.3969.
Lacey, Jordan. 2020. Sonic Rupture: A Practice-Led Approach to Urban Soundscape De-
sign. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Latour, Bruno. 2010. Nous n’avons jamais été modernes: essai d’anthropologie
symétrique. Paris: La Découverte.
———. 2015. Face à Gaïa: huit conférences sur le nouveau régime climatique. Paris: La
Découverte.
Morizot, Baptiste. 2023. L’inexploré. Marseille: Éditions Wildproject.
Schafer, R. Murray. 1977. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the
World. Rochester, Verm., Indian River, Ont.: Destiny Books: Arcana Editions.
 Volume 2/1 (2025) 15

Solomos, Makis, Roberto Barbanti, Guillaume Loizillon, Kostas Paparrigopoulos, and

Carmen Pardo Salgado. 2016. Musique et écologies du son: propositions
théoriques pour une écoute du monde. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Stengers, Isabelle. 2007. “La proposition cosmopolitique”. L’émergence des
cosmopolitiques, 45-68. Paris: La Découverte. DOI:
10.3917/dec.loliv.2007.01.0045.
Thibaud, Jean-Paul. 2002. “L’horizon des ambiances urbaines”. Communications 73, no.
1: 185-201. DOI: 10.3406/comm.2002.2119.
Truax, Barry, Aesthetic Research Centre of Canada, and World Soundscape Project.
1978. Handbook for Acoustic Ecology. Vancouver, Burnaby, B.C.: A.R.C. Publica-
tions: A.R.C. The Aesthetic Research Center: World Soundscape Project.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility
of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
DOI: 10.1515/9781400873548.
Westerkamp, Hildegard. 2002. “Linking Soundscape Composition and Acoustic Ecol-
ogy”. Organised Sound 7, no. 1: 51-56. DOI: 10.1017/S1355771802001085.

Authors’ Biographies
Simon Chioini is a composer and sound artist. His research-creation project integrates
sound composition within an interdisciplinary framework. His research explores the
relationships between sound, the environment and social dynamics. Drawing inspira-
tion from philosophy, geography and anthropology, his work aims to expand the un-
derstanding of sound composition through ecological and relational perspectives. In the
context of the current climate crisis, Chioini’s practice challenges the traditional divide
between nature and culture by examining how sound art can serve as a tool for medi-
ating and transforming the relationships between the two. His methodology combines
theoretical research with site-specific creative practices, often incorporating performa-
tive and participatory elements.

Myriam Boucher. Sound and video composer, and professor in digital/audiovisual mu-
sic composition at the Université de Montréal (CA), Myriam Boucher merges the organic
and the synthetic in her mesmerizing videomusic installations, immersive projects and
audiovisual performances. Her sensitive and polymorphic work explores the intimate
dialogue between music, sound and image, transforming everyday landscapes into fan-
tastical, living phenomena. Her research-creation activities integrate musical composi-
tion, improvisation, deep listening, sound ecology, site-specific creation and immersive
experiences. Her research aims to understand and analyze the mechanisms of percep-
tion in audiovisual works and multidisciplinary concerts which integrate sound, music,
image and performers, from the perspective that art is a practice capable of transform-
ing reality and generating new forms of sensitive representations.