I’ve been thinking about whether to go the step or giving the sonified objects a human voice or just signifying in a more abstract thinglike way. Still not sure which way to go but it’s reassuring that she finds it a useful tool and not over the top. She sees it as an “intervention for shaking loose the ...toxic scales of anthropocentrism.”
The creative decision for me in this project is the degree of agency and aliveness that an object exhibits.
just like Barand I don’t believe anthropomorphizing with that specific intention but if doing so a little bit can delete the perceived hard line between human and nonhuman is helpful then it could be worth making the step. She suggests opening up a conversation with nature thigh not about nature to other humans. How to open up possibilities of agency to plants? I plan to put sensors on plants to see or I can at least conjure a semblance of agency that could very well be there in the first place. It’s a small exercise but it will get people to think how else we can open up to door to inter species listening
Of course she is suggesting open up the conversation with nonhumans on an other level - of really giving them a chance, of “doing the work of it takes to truly enable a response...removing (some of) the weight of human impossibilities.”
As an aside, I find the social amoeba and communist comparison interesting
There is certainly ways in which these blobs exhibit strength of collaboration and challenge the highly individualistic self perceptions- that are both really valuable but also get us into anthropocene troubles - we have in western countries especially.