Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Technoplace

Lurking in the background of my last post is the issue of technology. While we live in the heavens by looking at the sky, we can extend our range even further with the telescope; while we create space by speaking, we can create an enormous space (of a qualitatively different sort) with a microphone and loudspeaker. All the powers by which we engage the world have a tool that can channel and magnify them.

As I come up on a business trip, my mind is especially on the cell phone. That little instrument makes me present both by hearing and by voice far, far away around the world. It’s a tenuous presence, admittedly, but at the touch of a few buttons—hey presto!—my wife is conjured up, is present to me; we speak and we hear. One of the oddest sensations is to talk on a cell phone in the middle of a group of people: one conversation continues around me, but at the same time I am far away, not only present in another place but vaguely imagining that place and myself speaking into it.

“Bilocation” might imply that I am equally present in both places, but it’s a weird sensation.

Even weirder is listening to the radio in my car. Here I am on the city street, now, in this familiar place, but suddenly as I hear the live voices over the waves I imagine myself transported far, far away. Strangely, I never hear the radio as voices speaking in my place but as voices speaking in their place, into which they draw me. Stranger still, I usually have no idea where the voices really are. While my speech into a cell phone puts me mentally into another place, into which I imagine myself speaking and from which my wife speaks to me, the radio whirls me out into an entirely indeterminate place. It is like reading a fairy tale in which the time and place are not specified: one thinks not of this place and this time, but of indeterminate time and indeterminate place. So the radio always makes me feel like I have personally been made present to indeterminate place—I am in the fairy tale.

Call me a curmudgeon, but I don’t listen to the radio much anymore.

The microphone is much worse than the radio. Right away, by the fact that it magnifies the voice so, it makes the speaker seem huge. I remember being at a Mass when the microphone was off through the first reading and half of the gospel; when it suddenly came on during the gospel, the priest seemed to grow before my eyes! In a Q&A situation, the speaker enjoys an immediate rhetorical advantage because he seems huge in comparison to his tenuous inquisitors—not to mention the fact that he can drown out their voices. At the same time, and for the same reason, the microphone does not create a communal place for many persons: it creates a monarchical place of one person with many subjects. This is one reason I don’t like it at Mass: even though I don’t usually want anyone speaking but the priest, at the same time I want the place of the Mass to be the place of the people praying, not the place of the SuperPriest and his auditors. The quality of the air is wrong. (As a side note, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite was impossible before the invention of the microphone. That little detail gets left out of a lot of the hot air exchanges on liturgical subjects.)

But another factor comes in with the microphone. I have spoken of our senses of hearing and sight, but there also another sense, the “common” sense, which integrates all of our senses into one experience. The sugar cube is not a sweet thing over here and a white thing over there, but a single sweet and white thing; sight and taste are integrated into once perception of the sugar cube. Similarly, when I see and hear a speaker, both senses come together into a single perception of him or her. But the microphone disrupts that by making the audible speaker many times bigger than the visible speaker and in a different place. When the microphone kicked in at Mass that one time, the priest’s megavoice floated down from the ceiling. If I closed my eyes, he seemed to be an enormous person floating somewhere above my head; if I opened my eyes, he shrunk somewhat and remained located at the podium, but I could feel the stress of a non-integrated sensory experience. My common sense was reeling.

All these technologies are important and useful. I’m not so much of a curmudgeon as to deny it. But it is also important to notice their effects and use them appropriately. They greatly magnify the scope and power of our presence; they also spread us out and change the quality of our places.

3 comments:

The Vitruvian Duck said...

First off, I really loved the last two posts. So much richness and depth there. I really wish you posted more often. That being said, I'm going to take you to task about one little point...

In your side note about the non-possibility of the Ordinary Rite before microphones, you seem pretty sure of the point...but I'm not so sure. All kinds of resounding devices were employed many, many centuries ago. Read this about the resounding vases (echeia) used in Greek amphitheaters:

http://tinyurl.com/cpbp9z

Also, Vitruvius mentions Greek and Roman actors turning to wooden doors at the back of the stage for use as sounding boards.

In ecclesiastical settings, the curvilinear apse gets its shape from the Roman Basilica (judgement hall) The curved apse geometrically refocuses the sound waves for audience members to hear the judgement better in the vast hall. It worked for judges, so it worked for priests.

Again, ambi (lecterns) are often covered with sounding boards, which in almost all cases generate enough resonant amplitude to allow a full church to hear a speaker from any place in the church without electronic amplification.

So, while I'd really like to believe the thought (because it's one of those statements that just feels like it ought to be true), I nevertheless don't think it's true.

Unfortunately, getting a pastor to believe this is impossible, so I still end up adding speakers and microphone jacks to all churches.

Ignoramus said...

Thanks, Duck! I'm about to leave for a conference so I can't read about sounding vases this second--but it's a fascinating thought. Hmmm. I guarantee I'll follow up on that as soon as I have Internet access again.

My comment about the Mass was based not on research but just on personal experience and speculation. That is, having been in some whopping big churches in Europe and listened to the accoustics, and having been in some medium sized churches in Europe on occasions when loudspeakers were not in use, I thought (a) "Wow, you can hear A LOT BETTER in these churches than in the flat-ceilinged, carpeted places back home" and (b) "As well as I can hear, I bet the priest couldn't keep it up through the entire Mass without a mike."

That there were ancient Greek devices to accomplish the job of a microphone never entered my ignorant head.

Pending my reading of the link you provided, let me revise my statement to read something like this: "The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite was impossible without some kind of amplification device."

Again, thanks much!

The Vitruvian Duck said...

No worries. The link is to a one-liner by Vitruvius about the greek method of using the vases. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) Vitruvius only barely mentions their use, not the method of their creation, so nobody can figure out how it all is supposed to work. By the time the next extant book was written on architecture (1400 years later) the practice and art of echeia resonance was completely lost.

Although, there is a concerted effort right now to try to figure it out.