A Philosophy of Ambient Sound:

Materiality, Technology, Art and the

Sonic Environment Ulrik Schmidt
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-philosophy-of-ambient-sound-materiality-technolog
y-art-and-the-sonic-environment-ulrik-schmidt/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Oxford Handbook Of Philosophy Of Technology 1st

Edition Shannon Vallor

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-philosophy-
of-technology-1st-edition-shannon-vallor/

The Art of Anatheism (Reframing Continental Philosophy

of Religion) 1st Edition Tim Di Muzio

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-art-of-anatheism-reframing-
continental-philosophy-of-religion-1st-edition-tim-di-muzio/

The Art of Assembly Language Programming using PIC

Technology. Core Fundamentals Theresa Schousek

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-art-of-assembly-language-
programming-using-pic-technology-core-fundamentals-theresa-
schousek-2/

Ambient Literature: Towards a New Poetics of Situated

Writing and Reading Practices Tom Abba

https://ebookmass.com/product/ambient-literature-towards-a-new-
poetics-of-situated-writing-and-reading-practices-tom-abba/
Technocrats of the Imagination: Art, Technology, and
the Military-Industrial Avant-Garde John Beck & Ryan
Bishop [Beck

https://ebookmass.com/product/technocrats-of-the-imagination-art-
technology-and-the-military-industrial-avant-garde-john-beck-
ryan-bishop-beck/

Superconducting Radiofrequency Technology for

Accelerators : State of the Art and Emerging Trends 1st
Edition Hasan Padamsee

https://ebookmass.com/product/superconducting-radiofrequency-
technology-for-accelerators-state-of-the-art-and-emerging-
trends-1st-edition-hasan-padamsee/

The Ascetic Ideal: Genealogies of Life-Denial in

Religion, Morality, Art, Science, and Philosophy
Stephen Mulhall

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-ascetic-ideal-genealogies-of-
life-denial-in-religion-morality-art-science-and-philosophy-
stephen-mulhall/

Art and Politics in Roger Scruton's Conservative

Philosophy Ferenc Hörcher

https://ebookmass.com/product/art-and-politics-in-roger-scrutons-
conservative-philosophy-ferenc-horcher/

Designing Engineering and Technology Curricula:

Embedding Educational Philosophy John Heywood

https://ebookmass.com/product/designing-engineering-and-
technology-curricula-embedding-educational-philosophy-john-
heywood/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN SOUND

A Philosophy of
Ambient Sound
Materiality, Technology, Art and the Sonic Environment

Ulrik Schmidt
Palgrave Studies in Sound

Series Editor
Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard, Musik
Aalborg University
Aalborg, Denmark
Palgrave Studies in Sound is an interdisciplinary series devoted to the
topic of sound with each volume framing and focusing on sound as it is
conceptualized in a specific context or field. In its broad reach, Studies in
Sound aims to illuminate not only the diversity and complexity of our
understanding and experience of sound but also the myriad ways in
which sound is conceptualized and utilized in diverse domains. The series
is edited by Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard, The Obel Professor of Music at
Aalborg University, and is curated by members of the university’s Music
and Sound Knowledge Group.

Editorial Board:
Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard (series editor)
Martin Knakkergaard
Mads Walther-Hansen

Editorial Committee:
Michael Bull
Barry Truax
Trevor Cox
Karen Collins
 Ulrik Schmidt

A Philosophy of
Ambient Sound
Materiality, Technology, Art
and the Sonic Environment
Ulrik Schmidt
Roskilde University
Roskilde, Denmark

ISSN 2633-5875     ISSN 2633-5883 (electronic)

Palgrave Studies in Sound
ISBN 978-981-99-1754-9    ISBN 978-981-99-1755-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1755-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore
Pte Ltd. 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © oxygen

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore
Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
In memory of Henrik Schmidt
 Acknowledgments

This book is the result of my year-long interest in the cross-disciplinary

fields of media philosophy, environmental sound and material aesthetics.
I am very grateful to the many people who have shared their perspectives
with me over the years, and for their continuous belief in the beauty of a
critical and dedicated exchange of thought. I wish to thank Mark
Grimshaw, the series editor of the Palgrave Studies in Sound, for his
encouragement and invaluable support in the early stages of the project.
Thanks to Marion Duval, Connie Li and the whole editorial staff at
Palgrave Macmillan for enabling a smooth, flexible and truly joyful pro-
cess. A special thanks to Holger Schulze and Jordan Lacey for kindly
supporting the project, and to Jordan for rich and valuable critique.
Thanks to my wonderful colleagues and students at Roskilde University.
And thanks to my dear friends and collaborators in the field of sound,
media and art for stimulating collaborations, passionate discussions and
a lot of fun, including Anja Mølle Lindelof, Anita Mašková, Anette
Vandsø, Jacob Lund, Jacob Ørum, Jakob Sand, Jens Hjortkjær, Henrik
B. Andersen, Henrik Oxvig, Honza Hoeck, Inger Berling Hyams, Macon
Holt, Mads Walther-Hansen, Martin Søberg, Morten Søndergaard,
Rasmus Holmboe, Rune Søchting, Sanne Krogh Groth, Tobias Kirstein,
Torben Sangild, Thomas Bitsch Jørgensen and everyone at Seismograf.
Thanks also to Annette Hauer, Paul Bridgwater and Jørgen I. Jensen.

vii
viii Acknowledgments

A dear thanks to my mom and dad, Lone and Henrik Schmidt, for their
lifelong support. And above all, thank you to Vera and Kristiane for
patiently living with the loneliness of the project, and for continuously
reminding me of the joys and wonders of everyday life outside of it. The
book is generously supported by a research grant from the Carlsberg
Foundation, for which I am truly thankful. I dedicate the book to the
memory of my father, Henrik Schmidt.
 Contents

1 I ntroduction  1
The ‘Problem’ of Ambient Sound    3
The Concept of Ambient Sound    5
Sonic Environmentality   8
Surroundability  11
Onto-aesthetics  16
Perspectives and Aims   19
Bibliography  31

Part I Fields  35

2 E
 ffects of Being-in 37
Toward a Material Morphology of Ambient Sound   37
Sound as Furniture   41
Centralization and Decentralization   44
Bibliography  49

3 Environmental
 and Surrounding Sounds 51
From Environmental to Surrounding Sounds   51
Objectivity and Environmentality   52

ix
x Contents

Objectlessness  59
The A-figurative Continuum   65
Bibliography  73

4 F
 ield Effects 77
Univocity and Consistency   77
Ubiquity  80
Immanence and Immersion   81
Toward the Ground   89
Groundlessness  92
Continuous Variation  96
Bibliography 104

Part II Strategies 107

5 S
 onic Mediatization109
Environmentality Without Ecology  109
What Is Mediatization?  112
Mediation and Mediatization  115
Acousmatics and Mediatization  118
Medium Effects, Phonogeny and Mediatization  124
Bibliography 131

6 S
 ynthetic Strategies133
From Reproduction Sensibilities to Production Sensibilities  133
Synthetic and Organic Matter  137
Synthetic Sound and Technology  139
Sound Masses  144
Generalized Pop  148
Bibliography 156

7 A
 mbient Sound Design159
Sound Design and the Production of Audiovisual Immanence  159
The Sonic Environment in Classic Cinema  160
 Contents xi

The Contemporary Audiovisual Scene  165

The Emancipation of Ambient Sound  168
Sonic Intensification of Audiovisual Space  170
Bibliography 178

Part III Frames 181

8 S
 taging Ambient Listening183
Technology and Listening  183
The Synthetic Production of the Listening Environment  185
The Double Mediality of Technological Listening  188
Staging the Ambient Listening Environment  194
Bibliography 199

9 Architectures
 of Acoustic Immanence203
Mediatization of Acoustic Space  203
Enhanced Reverberation  205
Acousmatization and Mediatization of the Acoustic Interior  207
Anti-reverberatory Purification  211
Bibliography 214

10 A
 mplified Surrounds215
Amplified Expansion and Centralization  215
Cinematic Surround Sound  218
Non-cinematic Surround Sound  223
Bibliography 234

11 Mobile
 Infrastructures of Everyday Listening237
Headphone Bubbles and Their Surroundings  238
Inside the Cocoon  242
Infrastructures of Environmental Distribution  245
Streaming Infrastructures and Bubbles of Ubiquity  247
Bibliography 252
xii Contents

12 Epilogue:
 Generic, Inattentive, Asocial255
Bibliography 263

B
 ibliography265

I ndex281
 List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Schematic summary of Gilles Deleuze’s conceptualization of

organic and inorganic matter 139
Fig. 6.2 The three techno-aesthetic paradigms of sonic space 140
Fig. 8.1 The double mediality of technological listening between
audile and ambient techniques 193

xiii
 1
Introduction

The production of surroundability is a basic condition of modern life and

its effects have only increased—for better or for worse. Today surround-
ings are designed more meticulously, promoted more forcefully and
desired more passionately than ever before. Everything is, to a growing
extent, being connected and shaped to attract attention, and even the
most mundane, peripheral and indiscernible event can have the greatest
environmental impact. Every aspect of the environment, foreground and
background, center and periphery, important and less important parts,
are rendered simultaneous, ever present and co-affective. Overarching
societal and cultural processes of Western modernity—urbanization,
industrialization, mediatization, globalization, commercialization, aes-
theticization—are in large part environmentally constituted. “Modernity
means,” as Peter Sloterdijk puts it, “that also the background becomes a
product.”1 Processes of environmental expansion, connectivity, synchro-
nization, compression and consolidation and of environmental enhance-
ment, management, investment, acceleration—they all contribute to
bringing forth and rendering sensible that which used to linger impercep-
tibly and unattended somewhere beyond the horizon in the premodern
world of familiarity, proximity and tangibility. With an ever-growing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 1
U. Schmidt, A Philosophy of Ambient Sound, Palgrave Studies in Sound,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1755-6_1
2 U. Schmidt

intensity, the surrounding environment of modern life was expanded and

promoted as an aesthetic, economic and social matter, which increasingly
encouraged its inhabitants to select and design their environments and to
direct their attention and desires toward them for meaning, security,
comfort and extraordinary experiences. We, the inhabitants of modern
habitats and habits, communicate in the surroundings, and we develop
new technologies and materials for the sole purpose of designing, rede-
signing and controlling them. The surrounding environment has become
a dominant vehicle in the current global societies of risk and control,
affective capitalism, attention ecology and aestheticized governmentality,
providing a common nest for the ongoing production of new regulations,
new spectacles, new behaviors, new fears and new desires.2
The invention of technical media, one of the key manifestations and
symbolic expressions of modernity, has a particular role in promoting this
sociocultural and ethico-aesthetic turn toward the environment. This
process, however, is not simply about media becoming more environ-
mental. It is also about the environment becoming more operative as a
form of medium, and technical media just make this general mediality of
the environment more evident, more habitual, more manipulatable and
more aggressively affective. As Erich Hörl argues in a pertinent passage,
we have, since around 2000, witnessed:

the emergence of an environmental culture of control that, thanks to the

radical environmental distribution of agency by environmental media
technologies, ranging from sensorial to algorithmic environments, from
bio- to nano- and geotechnologies, renders environmentality visible and
prioritizes it like never before. It thus ends the longstanding forgetting and
denial of the environment and, moreover, raises it to the status of a new
universal principle. This phase is the first to be genuinely environmental.
In other words, it is only with this phase that environmentality in the wid-
est sense becomes problematic and takes the form of a new […] mode of
governmentality; its main problem is the capture and the control, the man-
agement, the modulation of behavior, of affects, of relations, of intensities,
and of forces by means of environmental (media) technologies whose scope
ultimately borders on the cosmic. (Hörl 2017, p. 9-10)

In the most general sense, then, media technologies have developed

into encompassing environments—and environments have in turn begun
 1 Introduction 3

to operate as encompassing mediums—which condition our worldly sen-

sations, perceptions and conceptions. Environments and media have
become habitual and inhabitable world-making medium-environments,
providing and conditioning the elemental frameworks we live in and
from where we make sense of and connect with the world around us.3 As
John Durham Peters notes, media “are vessels and environments, con-
tainers of possibility that anchor our existence and make what we are
doing possible” (Peters 2015, p. 2). And according to Mark B.N. Hansen,
“twenty-first-century media are largely environmental in their scope,
which means that they affect the materiality of experience at a level more
elemental than that of perception […] in favor of sensation—or rather
what I shall call ‘Worldly sensibility’” (Hansen 2015, p. 46).
Crucially, this worldly, often imperceptible but usually highly sensible,
environmentalization of media, this mediatization of the sensible envi-
ronment, is not essentially technological, although it is often radically
intensified by technology. Whether the surrounding environment
becomes more surrounding and environmental because of media tech-
nologies or not is not the question. What is important is how the sur-
roundability of the surrounding environment increases because it
becomes more mediatic, controllable and designable as medium—and
what it means for our being, thoughts, experiences and desires that it
does. What this means and how this comes about must necessarily be
examined and grasped beyond definite distinctions between the ‘natural’
and the ‘artificial’—between natural and artificial environments and
between natural and artificial mediums.4 Surroundability and environ-
mentality are everywhere—for better or for worse.

The ‘Problem’ of Ambient Sound

Sound arguably plays a crucial role in this general turn toward the envi-
ronment as a desirable, manipulatable, inhabitable and habitual medium.
Again, this process is not just about inventing and using more sonic
media technologies more often, and nor is it about their increased envi-
ronmentality alone (although the pervasiveness of phenomena such as
background music, sonic streaming, mobile listening devices, surround
4 U. Schmidt

sound and audiovisual social media are obviously important factors).

Sound is mediatic and environmental independent of and beyond the
invention and use of specific technologies. Hence, the possibility of tech-
nological sound (re)production does not essentially alter the ontological
status of sound as mediatic and environmental but only expands its oper-
ative and affective potentials. Taking a realist and materialist ontological
perspective, we can characterize sound as a complex, fundamentally eco-
logical event that connects partly dissociated instances (a sound’s cause,
source and effect) to stir an elemental medium into vibration throughout
the environment. Furthermore, each sound is (in)formed according to
the material conditions of the environment, including its potential inter-
ference with other sounds. A sound is thus defined in part by the complex
distribution of energy and information between its cause, source, effect
and medium that generates ecological disturbance in an environmental,
vibrant medium, the vibration of which in turn is the sound as material
event.5 This perspective, in other words, entails a conception of sound as
the potential becoming operative, effective, affective and audible of sonic
matter in and as an environmental matter-medium.6
With sound being a central factor in the general environmentalization
of culture and society, the study of sonic environments and their impact
on aesthetic and sociocultural practice thus possesses an enormous ana-
lytical and critical potential. Environmental issues have for obvious rea-
sons become of general concern in recent years, in the humanities, social
sciences and the arts and in society at large. The role of sound and the
sonic environment in this ‘environmental turn’ has accordingly contin-
ued to gain new relevance. In addition, the increase in the techno-­
aesthetic environmentalization of sound and media stresses the need for
a more extensive clarification of the intimate relations between sound,
medium and environment: How can we think the equation sound =
medium = environment and what does it entail to do so? To embark on
such an exploration in thought is the main ambition of this book. It
builds on the general conjecture that understanding how we engage with
our sonic surroundings as a mediatized environment and environmental
matter-medium can provide fundamental insight into what it’s like to
live, communicate, sense and make sense in a hyper-aestheticized culture
of environmental affectivity, intensification and control. What does it
 1 Introduction 5

mean for our relationship with the world—with sounds, things, informa-
tion and people around us—when they are felt, and wanted to be felt, as
something we are surrounded by? How do we relate to sounds when they
mainly affect us as accumulative parts of a larger mass of generalized envi-
ronmentality? What does it mean, in a sociocultural and philosophical
perspective, when things, signs and information are no longer seen as
individual occurrences that occupy an independent, particular and
delimited position in time and space, but are brought together and spread
out into the environment as a heterogeneous all-encompassing whole?
Taking such questions as a guiding framework, the book proposes and
explores ambient sound as a key issue and basic philosophical ‘problem’
in sound studies, media philosophy and the aesthetics of sound. I pose
ambient sound as a ‘problem’ not only to stress its inescapable, yet still
partly ignored, formative and affective influence in the general history of
sound and listening: from the aesthetic impact of technological (re)pro-
duction on ambient listening to ambient sound’s role in the general pro-
duction of subjectivity and sociocultural relations to leading ambient
trends in artistic practice to the sociopolitical implications of a spectacu-
lar ambient aestheticization and environmentalization of everyday audi-
tory life. Moreover, ambient sound also constitutes a key problem in and
for sound studies and sonic thinking. Most notably, the theorization of
ambient sound and the sonic environment is for the most part conceptu-
ally obscured by ambiguity and ambivalence. As a consequence, there still
doesn’t seem to be much scholarly consensus about what precisely consti-
tutes the ambient dimension of sound and sonic environments—and
thus how and to what extent this dimension has influenced the history
and aesthetics of sonic technology, music and sound art, listening prac-
tices, and the general sociopolitical impact of environmental sound on
modern and contemporary auditory life.

The Concept of Ambient Sound

Ambient is a basic concept for the surroundings and how we produce and
experience them. In a remarkable text from 1942, “Milieu and Ambiance,”
the Austrian-American philologist Leo Spitzer maps out, in staggering
6 U. Schmidt

detail, the development of the concept of ‘ambient’ from the pre-Socratic

philosophers over the first Latin uses and further throughout the Western
history of ideas to the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl
and Martin Heidegger. According to Spitzer, the term ‘ambient’ (and its
modern derivation ‘ambiance’/‘ambience’) is rooted in the Latin ambire,
which means to ‘go around’ (Spitzer 1942b, p. 186). Ambire, in turn,
derived from the Latin translation of the Greek term periēchon, the mean-
ing of which Spitzer defines as “that which surrounds, encompasses.”7
Accordingly, the adjective ‘ambient’—observable in common terms such
as ‘ambient air,’ ‘ambient space’ and, of course, ‘ambient sound’—denotes
a basic surroundability of a phenomenon; its capacity and tendency to
expand, pervade, circulate, encircle and encompass in time and space.
Throughout history this general ambient feature of surroundability has
taken quite different meanings in various contexts. As a term, ‘ambient’
has thus etymologically been closely connected—in some cases almost
synonymously—with a wide range of other key concepts such as air,
ether, cosmos, atmosphere, envelopment, embrace, enclosure, circulation,
periphery, middle, inbetweenness and, perhaps most important in this con-
text, medium and environment.8 In a sense, to be ambient has always
implied a simultaneous capacity and propensity to be mediatic and envi-
ronmental—in medias res, environing.
Perhaps due to this long, winding history and utter complexity of the
term, the meaning and terminological application of the very word
‘ambient’/‘ambience’/‘ambiance’ is notoriously confused and tangled up
in a mesh of conceptual ambiguity. And the field of sound studies is cer-
tainly not an exception to the case. Key terms such as environmental
sound, sonic environment, soundscape, ecology, atmosphere, ambiance and
ambient sound tend to be used almost interchangeably—as if all we
needed was a general idea of sonic environmentality. The tendency to
conflate the different environmental terms (especially ambient/ambience/
ambiance/atmosphere) is thus widespread, and examples are far too
numerous and differentiated to allow for a satisfactory overview here.9
Instead, I wish to call attention to one notable example, in the field of
sound studies, of an explicit conflation of atmosphere and ambiance by
considering the influential work on urban ambiance by Jean-François
Augoyard (2004) and, in particular, Jean-Paul Thibaud (2011a, b, c,
2015, 2017a).
 1 Introduction 7

While Thibaud has recently discussed the etymological complexity of

the term ‘ambiance’ (Thibaud 2020), he explicitly connects, in several
other writings, ambiance (and secondarily ambient sound) with the
embodied ‘attunement’ to a specific place, and to particular qualities of
site-specific situatedness and emotional presence typically associated with
Stimmung and atmosphere. “For instance,” he notes, “an ambiance can be
specified by its ‘tone’ (an affective tonality), it involves our ability to be
‘in tune’ with the place, it has something to do with ‘sympathy’ and ‘har-
mony’ ... We speak sometimes of ‘a vibrant atmosphere’” (Thibaud 2011a,
unpaginated). This understanding of ambiance as associated with a sym-
pathetic presence and situatedness stems in part from the notion of atmo-
sphere developed by Gernot Böhme (1995, 2001, 2017), who has been a
crucial reference and inspiration for several key thinkers of sonic ambi-
ence, including Jean-Paul Thibaud (2017b).
As I will seek to substantiate throughout the book, the concept of
ambient sound I develop and theorize here differs quite considerably
from, and at times poses a direct challenge to, the atmospheric notion of
sonic ‘ambiance’ as employed by Böhme, Thibaud and many others.
Indeed, as I will argue, ambient sound and ambiance/atmosphere in fact
and effect denote two distinct and separate dimensions of the sonic envi-
ronment, each with their own aesthetic potentials and implications. Such
a clear and unequivocal differentiation is in part supported by the etymo-
logical development of the terms. While the term ‘ambient,’ as men-
tioned, stems from early Latin translations of Aristotle to denote notions
of surroundability and envelopment, ‘ambiance’ is an entirely modern
term, intimately connected to the more emotional or ‘spiritual’ notion of
atmosphere. Hence, when the term ambiance, as Spitzer notes (1942b,
p. 186), was first introduced in French in 1891, and shortly after in
English as both ‘ambiance’ and ‘ambience’, it was “a word evocative of a
spiritual climate or atmosphere, emanating from, hovering over, a
milieu—or even a thing” (ibid., p. 188). In essence, atmosphere/ambiance/
ambience is a form of “spiritual περιέχον [periēchon]” (ibid., p. 199).
The emotional attunement and site-specific presence, which Thibaud
associates with the notion of sonic ambiance, thus accords finely with the
term’s etymological origins. Yet, at the same time, the ‘spiritual’ or emo-
tional connotations of ambiance is precisely what makes the term
8 U. Schmidt

unsuitable for describing distinctly ambient effects such as surroundabil-

ity, ubiquity, decentralization and unobtrusiveness—effects which have
less, if anything, to do with either tone, place, attunement, harmony or
sympathy. And more importantly, it prevents entirely any comprehensive
conceptualization of other key components of ambient sound that are in
direct conflict with any ‘spiritual’ notion of sonic environmentality,
including effects of deterritorialization, dehumanization, massification,
synthetization, sensory isolation and many others. In short, to properly
understand the immense influence of the specifically ambient dimension
of the sonic environment on modern sonic art, technology and auditory
life, we need a non-atmospheric concept of ambient sound.
In addition, we need a broad and general concept of ambient sound. As
Thibaud notes, he limits his understanding of sonic ambience to include
the sound of urban public space: “when I speak of ambiance, I am refer-
ring to architectural and urban ambiances. The idea is not to explore
ambiance or atmosphere in general, as a generic notion, as a wide and
vague term. On the contrary, the notion refers to various specific sensory
experiences always situated and spatially contextualized” (2011a, unpagi-
nated). By contrast, I will insist on the necessity of a general conception
and conceptualization of ambient sound and listening across specific his-
torical and sociocultural contexts, musical and artistic genres, lived prac-
tices and theoretical perspectives. To be ambient, and to want to be
ambient, is both a technological, artistic, socio-material and experiential
matter. And I take this wide and general approach precisely to avoid the
conceptual vagueness of a too fragmented, local and specific theorization.
Wide and general phenomena need wide and general concepts.

Sonic Environmentality
If environmental sound is the property of a sound as being in and of the
environment, a sonic environment is the collection and merging of envi-
ronmental sounds into a heterogeneous vibrant whole, which provides a
potentially meaningful, affective and environing medium for a potential
listener. Consider the environmental sounds of, for instance, an air con-
ditioning unit; a big plane flying over the house; the wind in the trees; the
 1 Introduction 9

voice of a news reporter on television; the sound of your own feet walking
on the pavement; a dog barking somewhere in the distance; music play-
ing or neighbors quarreling next door; or the sudden vibrant sound of an
incoming phone call. These different forms of environmental sound
point to different environmental processes, functions and activities with
different signifying and affective potentials. Some environmental sounds
are indicators of a specific event occurring in a specific moment and a
specific location, whereas others fill the space as constants permeating the
entire environment. Some sounds are closely related to other sounds (by
shape, proximity, contextual meaning, etc.), others are not. Some sounds
are technologically mediated, others are not. And some sounds express
subjective and social relations, states and emotions, others do not. In this
way, each sonic environment is defined by the specific ways in which it
combines different forms of environmental sound with different signify-
ing and affective potentials. However obvious this observation may be, it
arguably pinpoints some of the most intricate difficulties with how to
conceptualize the functions, meanings and aesthetic potentials of the
sonic environment—and thus of ambient sound more specifically.
R. Murray Schafer, a pioneer in sparking the interest in sound environ-
ments and sonic ecology, famously introduced the term soundscape as a
general, all-embracing term denoting “any acoustic field of study” (1994,
p. 7). He proposed a simple compositional structure for the soundscape
centered around a few significant features: keynote sounds, sound marks
and sound signals. However, as I will discuss in more detail later, this
conception implies a hierarchical understanding of what a sonic environ-
ment is and how it conditions listening, which is arguably limited and,
on crucial points, thoroughly misconceived. Furthermore, the term
‘soundscape’ is, as Jonathan Sterne, Christine Guillebaud and many oth-
ers have argued, notoriously imbued with analogies of visuality, musical-
ity, frontality, flatness, distance, structural stability and cultural privilege.10
The legacy and quality of Schafer’s work notwithstanding, we thus argu-
ably need other—less hierarchical, distant, static and musical—concep-
tualizations of sonic environmentality to truly grasp the sociocultural
impact, functioning and aesthetic potentials of the sonic environment in
general and of ambient sound in particular. We need, to paraphrase John
Cage’s famous dictum with a small alteration, to let ambient sounds ‘be
10 U. Schmidt

themselves’ rather than vehicles for hierarchical structurization, musical

analogies and cultural valuations of taste.
In addition, as I have argued in more detail elsewhere (Schmidt 2019),
Schafer’s theory of the soundscape implies, in contrast to his general
intentions, the promotion of an analytic approach to sonic environments
in which the very environmentality of the soundscape, its very potential
to affect as an environment, is outshined by an essentially ‘non-­
environmental’ listening to individual (categories of ) sounds in the envi-
ronment.11 Although sonic environments have been of scholarly concern
since at least the 1960s, where Schafer published his first writings, the
very environmental properties and capacities of the sonic environment,
the way it functions and affects as environment, has arguably been some-
what neglected. With a Heideggerian phrase, we might even speak of a
partial ‘forgetting’ of the very environmental nature of the sonic environ-
ment. To insist on the environmental qualities and affective potentials of
the environment, I will, in line with Hörl’s general ecology, propose the
term sonic environmentality to describe the material, performative and
affective capacities of the sonic environment as environment. The notion
of sonic environmentality is adapted from a phrase in Heidegger’s Sein
und Zeit (1927) where he, inspired by the writings of Jakob von Uexküll,
speaks of “environmentality” (Umweltlichkeit) as “the worldliness of the
surrounding world” (Heidegger 1996, p. 62).
To insist on the environmentality of sound is to insist on the need to
raise general questions regarding the very relation between sound, listener
and environment: What are the material conditions and onto-aesthetic
implications of listening to and staging sound as environment? What
does it mean to be affected by the sonic environment as environment and
not as a set of individual sounds in the environment? And what perspec-
tives and conceptual frameworks will allow us to distinguish between
different types of sonic environments and different ways of being affected by
them? I propose a distinction between three basic aspects of sonic envi-
ronmentality, three key dimensions of the way sound performs and affects
us as environment: sonic ecology, sonic atmosphere and ambient sound.
In sound studies specifically and in aesthetic analyses of environmental
phenomena more generally, there is, as we have just seen, a widespread
tendency to use and understand the three terms as generic, all-embracing
 1 Introduction 11

and, to some extent, synonymous concepts. To enable a more consistent

and nuanced conception of sonic environmentality and its affective
potentials, I suggest, by contrast, to make a clear and explicit distinction
between ecology, atmosphere and ambient sound as constituting three
separate, yet interrelated, affective dimensions of the sonic environment.
They each express different ways in which an environment can perform
and affect as environment, each with its own distinct aesthetic potential,
and each with a specific role in the general environmentalization of
sound, auditory perception and sociocultural exchange.
The three dimensions are not mutually exclusive but co-constitutive
factors in the overall production of sonic environmentality. A sonic envi-
ronment can thus be characterized by the way it combines, articulates
and performs its ambient, atmospheric and ecological dimensions in a
specific event. Ecological environmentality emphasizes the environment’s
relational properties of sonic interconnectivity and of being mutually
involved and entangled with all its parts in a dehierarchized relationship.
Entanglement, interconnectivity and resonance are keywords of sonic
ecology. Atmospheric environmentalities, on the other hand, designate
the environment’s production of a spatially distributed, social and site-­
specific presence. An atmosphere is something that radiates from material
things, people and events to generate a particular situation of affective
environmental attunement. Atmospheres can therefore tell us something
about how it feels to be present and emotionally engaged in a specific
material environment as a site- and context-specific situation.12
Attunement, sociomaterial radiance and site-specific presence are key-
words of sonic atmosphere.13 In conjunction with sonic ecologies and
atmospheres, ambient sound, in turn, activates yet another register of the
affective relationship between sound, listener and environment. This rela-
tionship is expressed in the surroundability of the sonic environment.

Surroundability
As James J. Gibson writes, “to be ambient at a point means to surround a
position in the environment that could be occupied by an observer. The
position may or may not be occupied” (Gibson 1986, p. 65). Accordingly,
12 U. Schmidt

to have an ambient experience is to occupy a position in the environ-

ment, from which the world exposes its environing properties. In this
basic expression, sound not only exposes the environing properties of the
environment. It also entails a certain way in which this environmentality
is experienced, potentially or actually, as a form of surround. With ambi-
ent sound, in other words, the environment emphasizes its environing
properties to stimulate sensations of being surrounded in and by the envi-
ronment as a sonic surround. This intimate relationship between envi-
ronmentality and surroundability is stressed by key thinkers of the
environment from Hippolyte Taine, Jakob von Uexküll and Martin
Heidegger to James J. Gibson, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari.14 As
Spitzer notes, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the
term ‘milieu’ developed, with the thoughts of Taine, Uexküll and others,
from Newton’s classical notion of ambient medium (translated into French
as milieu ambiant)—in Newton a purely physical term designating “that
which surrounds a given body” (Spitzer 1942b, p. 175)—to become a
term for the immediate surroundings of living beings. The environment
started to entail a complex, enveloping field in which an individual senses,
recognizes, understands and is exposed to its world as an affective sur-
round. As Uexküll famously conceived it, the environment constitutes an
inner world, a spheric Umwelt, surrounding the individual animal as if in
a “soap bubble” of environmental interiority.15 Thus, with the modern
concept of the environment, the milieu regains its original ‘middle’ mean-
ing as “the place surrounding us, in the middle of which we are.”16
In this surrounding world in the middle of which we are, however,
some phenomena will be perceived as more surrounding and encompass-
ing and others as more isolated and individuated. While all environments
surround, some environments tend to expose their surroundability more
than others. Certain configurations, arrangements and distributions of
elements, certain material properties and certain perceptual modes will
thus emphasize the inherent ambient potentials of the environment more
than others. Sound and listening have often been distinguished as having
an intrinsic capacity for spatial envelopment: sound, obviously, is a vibratory
material that propagates, reverberates, circulates and fills our surround-
ings.17 This capacity for propagation and envelopment should not, how-
ever, lead to essentialist conclusions about ambient surroundability as
 1 Introduction 13

something that applies exclusively to sound, nor that envelopment is the

most basic and primordial dimension of sound, as it is often the case.
Light, gas, water, air—or for that sake snow, trees, screens, commodities,
crowds, cars, information, fancy odors and a vast amount of other mate-
rial phenomena—obviously have similar surrounding capacities, and
sound is expressive, communicative, informational, distinct, individu-
ated and locative as much as it is surrounding. The ambition to escape the
widespread tendency to idealize the surrounding aspects as the essence of
sound is precisely the reason for Jonathan Sterne’s well-known critique of
what he calls the “audiovisual litany”—an ideological scheme of the
senses, with “theological overtones,” that has haunted modern auditory
culture and sound studies. Sterne thus takes a stand against romantic
notions of hearing as “the sense of affect” and “the enveloping sense”
(Sterne 2003, p. 95). In the audiovisual litany he lists a set of clichés and
popular assumptions about essential differences between sound and
vision by which sound is idealized as primordially interior, spherical and
immersive in opposition to vision’s distance, directionality and perspec-
tive.18 Obviously, to avoid and navigate around this essentialist pitfall
comprises an indispensable task, and a fruitful challenge, for any explora-
tion of ambient sound, including this one.
Yet, the visual and auditory systems do obviously differ in important
respects. In his classic phenomenological analysis of listening, Don Ihde
argues that while the visual field is relatively limited and inclined to a
“forward oriented directionality”, the

auditory field as a shape does not appear so restricted to a forward orienta-

tion. As a field-shape I may hear all around me, or, as a field shape, sound
surrounds me in my embodied positionality. […] My auditory field and my
auditory focusing is not isomorphic with visual field and focus, it is omni-
directional. In the shape of the auditory field, as a surrounding thing, the
field-shape ‘exceeds’ that of the field-shape of sight. Were it to be modeled
spatially, the auditory field would have to be conceived of as a ‘sphere’
within which I am positioned, but whose ‘extent’ remains indefinite as it
reaches outward toward a horizon. But in any case as a field, the auditory
field-shape is that of a surrounding shape. […] The auditory field sur-
rounds the listener, and surroundability is an essential feature of the field-­
shape of sound. (Ihde 2007, p. 75-76)
14 U. Schmidt

Hence, compared to vision, the auditory system does, after all, argu-
ably possess some inclination toward ambient sensibilities. On the other
hand, though, audition is very far from being exclusively or primordially
ambient. Frontality, directionality and focus on isolated objects, events
and streams are obviously as essential to auditory perception as are sensa-
tions of envelopment and surroundability, learned as they are throughout
evolution and refined and promoted in modern cultural history as a gen-
eral “audile technique” of everyday mediated listening (Sterne 2003).
Learning to direct auditory attention to specific environmental events for
spatial and semantic analysis is not only a central part of the evolution of
perception. It also constitutes a crucial component in numerous techni-
cized forms of modern communication such as telegraphy, acoustic
design of theaters, concert halls, cinemas and other sonic architectures, in
telephony, and in acoustic military observation and sonic warfare
(Ouzounian 2020). Hence, while there may be some evidence in describ-
ing sound and listening as more ambiently oriented than vision, this
week inclination does not explain to any important degree the actual
functioning and impact of ambient sound as a cultural phenomenon, nor
ambient listening as cultivated, aestheticized practice. In audition, as in
other perceptual registers, ambient effects are but one dimension of a
general environmentality, and ambient sensations but one dimension of
a general system of environmental sensibility. Again, some surroundings
are more surrounding than others, and some forms of listening are more
oriented toward this surroundability than others.
But, if auditory perception does not to any essential extent constitute
an exclusive domain for ambient sensibilities compared to other registers,
what is ambient listening then? While the audiovisual litany is obviously
reductive from an ontological perspective, it sketches a set of general dis-
tinctions that are still of great importance for the study of ambient sound
and listening. Beyond the essentialist opposition between vision and
audition, its implied opposition between directionality and surroundabil-
ity thus entails a legitimate general distinction between two basic forms
of environmental affectivity and awareness that arguably applies to mul-
timodal perception on a broad level. Perception—and listening more
 1 Introduction 15

specifically—is in other words not either directional or surroundable but

both at the same time. For example, as James J. Gibson argues in his eco-
logical psychology of perception, visual perception is fundamentally
characterized by a continuous wavering between sensations of direction-
ality and surroundability: “looking-at and looking-around” comprise two
basic forms of visual perception “that naturally go together” (Gibson
1986, p. 209) in our perception of the environment.19
In specific regard to listening, Pauline Oliveros, Don Ihde and others
have made similar arguments for a close relationship between directional-
ity and surroundability. Oliveros thus distinguishes between “focal atten-
tion” and “global attention” as basic components in her idea of deep
listening and sonic awareness: “Focal attention, like a lens, produces clear
detail limited to the object of attention. Global attention is diffuse and
continually expanding to take in the whole of the space/time continuum
of sound. Sensitivity is to the flow of sounds and details are not necessar-
ily clear. […] The practice of Deep Listening encourages the balancing of
these two forms of attention so that one can flexibly employ both forms
and recognize the difference between these two forms of listening”
(Oliveros 2005, p. 13).
As we just saw, Ihde may tend to associate directionality and surround-
ability with properties inherent in the visual and auditory systems respec-
tively. He makes no further attempt, though, at essentializing the
connection. On the contrary, and in line with Oliveros, he clearly distin-
guishes auditory perception as being characterized by a “‘double’ dimen-
sionality” (Ihde 2007, p. 77) in which directionality and surroundability
are intimately connected and coexisting, yet potentially conflictual,
dimensions of environmental listening that in combination shape the act
of environmental listening in different ways in each specific situation. As
Ihde writes, “both the global, encompassing surroundability of sound,
which is most dramatic and fully present in overwhelming sounds, and
the often quite precise and definite directionality of sound presence,
which is noted in our daily ‘location’ of sounds, are constantly copresent.
For the description to be accurate, both surroundability and directional-
ity must be noted as copresent” (ibid.).
16 U. Schmidt

Onto-aesthetics
As Ihde acknowledges, directionality and surroundability are not simply
variations in perceptual attitude. They must equally be understood as
properties and qualities of the environment.20 The ambient dimension of
sonic environmentality thus both denote a surrounding property of the
world and a sensation of being in that surround: ambient surroundability
is both a specific ontological property that some environmental phenom-
ena possess, and a potential aesthetic effect that can be actualized in spe-
cific acts of listening. This understanding of a deep and intimate
relationship between ontological and aesthetic registers have often been
summarized in the concept onto-aesthetics, especially to describe the
rethinking of aesthetics, non-representational being and non-subjective,
affective sensation in Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy. However, the very
notion of onto-aesthetics has also been an object of critique in current
sound studies. For instance, discussing the recent material and ontologi-
cal turn in sound studies (exemplified by Christoph Cox, Steve Goodman
and Greg Hainge), Brian Kane explicitly takes a critical stance against
onto-aesthetics and what he regards as its implied defense of “a theory of
the work of art as a disclosure of its ontological condition” (Kane 2015,
p. 11). Eventually, he argues, this position risks promoting a “sound stud-
ies without auditory culture” (cf. the title of his essay), since the “argu-
ments developed by proponents of the ‘ontological turn’ in sound studies
neglect the role played by auditory cultures in shaping affective responses
to sound and in ‘ontological’ claims about sound” (ibid., p. 16). Will
Schrimshaw expands on Kane’s argument and takes it in a slightly other
direction, criticizing what he sees as a widespread tendency, in ontologi-
cal thinking about sound and sound art, to equate non-representational
materialism with an aesthetics of immanence and immersion. This equa-
tion builds, Schrimshaw argues, on an unhealthy “conflation of aesthetics
and ontology” (Schrimshaw 2017, p. 110).
However, although Kane and Schrimshaw both draw on Deleuze,
their notions of onto-aesthetics arguably differ in important respects
from the Deleuzian approach I wish to pursue here.21 Most importantly,
onto-aesthetics, in the sense I will use the term, does not entail a “confla-
tion” of being (ontology) and sensation (aesthetics). It merely stresses the
 1 Introduction 17

intimate relations between them as separate, yet coupled and co-­

determining registers, by acknowledging that ontological properties have
aesthetics potentials, while not being reducible to them, just as aesthetic
effects are, partly and to different degrees, products of ontological, mate-
rial circumstances and therefore must be taken into account as such.
Thus, as Stephen Zepke notes, the Deleuzian “co-implication of ontology
and aesthetics” primarily “involves a redefinition of experience by which
its objective and subjective conditions are dissolved in the real, the reality
of the world as it becomes nothing else than itself. Art in these terms is an
autogenesis expressing the world (its real conditions) by constructing
experience (its real experience)” (Zepke 2005, p. 4). The world as mate-
rial ontological being is potentially sensible (but never only sensible) and
the sensible is in the world, which may or may not include a sensing
subject.22 To have an aesthetic experience, then, is in essence to take the
role of a miner in worldly affectivity and dig out the dormant sensible
potentials of the environment, to actualize its real but virtual effect, and
unfold them—consciously and intentionally, or utterly unawares—in a
specific act of aesthetic experience. The world as onto-aesthetic is the
material world as virtual sensation, laid out for us to actualize.
In other words, ontology and aesthetics are not conflated in an onto-­
aesthetics of ambient sound, but merely co-implicated in a mutual rela-
tionship, which is a critical difference. Ontological properties produce
ambient sound as a virtual or potential aesthetic condition for its actual-
ization in a specific sensation of being surrounded by sound. The produc-
tion of ambient sound as surroundability does not include an actual
listener, but its actualization as ambient, the actual sensation of being
surrounded, does. An onto-aesthetic approach, in these terms, exposes
the field of investigation for a general philosophy of ambient sound as an
aesthetic relation between ontological being as sonic expression and effect
and its affective potentials for listening. We must, then, consider the
ontological aspects related to ambient sound as material event: What ele-
ments constitute and produce the specifically ambient aspects of sound?
How and why can some sounds be considered more ambient than others?
And we must consider the closely related affective potentials and implied
listening modes constructed in and by ambient sound: What are the spe-
cifically ambient effects and affects of sound and how are they expressed,
18 U. Schmidt

artistically and non-artistically, in specific aesthetic events? How is ambi-

ent sound distinguished as a material construction that conditions spe-
cific forms of aesthetic engagement with sound? In short: What is ambient
sound?—how does it sound, and how is it produced? And what is ambi-
ent listening?—what affective conditions for listen are produced by ambi-
ent sound and what does it entail to listen ambiently?
While these questions indicate different philosophical problems (onto-
logical and aesthetic), only by seeing them as correlated can we grasp
ambient sound as an onto-aesthetic problem, characterized by the co-­
implication of morphological, material and technological registers and
senso-perceptual registers. And only by seeing them as correlated can we
fully address ambient sound as a key problem in modern auditory culture
and begin to mine its social, cultural and artistic implications. To practice
such a thinking of sound as an onto-aesthetic potential is arguably similar
to what Mark Grimshaw and Tom Garner, inspired by Deleuze and Brian
Massumi, describe with the term “sonic aggregate.” Sonic aggregates are
“all the components that together create the potential for the perception
of sound to emerge” (Grimshaw and Garner 2015, p. 166). Mack Hagood
also emphasizes sound as an affective potential, especially when mediated
by technologies. As he notes, this idea of sound as potential perception is
closely associated with a ‘post-phenomenological’ approach, not only as
it is explicitly outlined in and in relation to Don Ihde’s later writings, but
also as it is implied in a Deleuzian onto-aesthetics (Hagood 2019,
p. 81–84). By insisting on the active role of the material world in the
production of sensation and subjectivity, Deleuze’s onto-aesthetic phi-
losophy can thus be regarded as a profound contribution to what Mark
B.N. Hansen calls “the post-phenomenological afterlife of phenomenol-
ogy” (2015, p. 27).
This materialist, onto-aesthetic and post-phenomenological approach,
which I, inspired by Deleuze, will take toward sound and listening and
their intimate relations, differs from classical phenomenology on some
crucial points. Most importantly, it redirects the focus of classical phe-
nomenology on perception and consciousness toward the material envi-
ronment and its senso-perceptual potentials. It is a phenomenology no
longer founded on the perceiving subject but on the material worldly
being as (virtual/potential) sensation. Consequently, it recognizes: a) that
 1 Introduction 19

environmental phenomena often challenge the idea of intentionality and

directionality; b) that subjects do not autonomously constitute their
environments, as if thrown into the world from somewhere beyond, but
are entangled and co-produced with them; and c) that vibrating environ-
mental phenomena, such as sounds, do not per se provide or privilege a
‘natural’, horizonal, locational and bodily grounded form of spatial per-
ception, which is often taken for granted in classical phenomenology. An
onto-aesthetic, post-phenomenological approach to ambient sound,
then, is not so much interested in subjects and their general forms of
intentional perception (including their culturally specific and often privi-
leged perspectives). Rather, it is concerned with the potential of ambient
sound for conditioning specific forms of affective engagement and the
onto-aesthetic production of subjectivity it entails.

Perspectives and Aims

This onto-aesthetic perspective, I will argue, is not in any way opposed to
a cultural and historical understanding of ambient sound. Quite the con-
trary, it can help to emphasize the role of ambient sound in the general
cultural-historical shaping of perception, sensibility, desires and media-
tized attention in modernity.23 As I will seek to substantiate throughout
the book, ambient sound has developed into a norm or standard in many
of the most central and dominant parts of modern and contemporary
auditory culture, including the design and use of sonic technologies,
artistic practices with sound and the general aestheticization of everyday
auditory life, all of which, in both scope and impact, far exceeds ‘ambient
music’ as a genre in recent music history. I thus regard ambient sound not
so much, or not only, as a form of specialized musical expression. It is, on
a much more general historical and cultural level, a material, onto-­
aesthetic condition of sonic environmentality, produced through the
implementation of and engagement with a number of generalized tech-
nologies and cultural techniques for producing and experiencing sound,
which in turn shape and condition our particular expressive and affective
engagements with sound.
20 U. Schmidt

This is evidently the case when ambient sound and listening become
explicit goals in their own right, as in the commercial sound industry’s
promotion of remarkably, and increasingly more, ambient listening tech-
nologies (e.g., surround sound and noise cancelling headphones), stream-
ing infrastructures and portable distribution formats. Or in the full
embrace, within certain parts of contemporary sound art and museum
exhibits, of immersive sound and spectacular audiovisual installations.
But it also applies, albeit more subtly, in the pervasive tendency to employ
mediatizing and massifying strategies as a standard approach in postwar
electro-acoustic music, pop music and sound art since the early 1960s,
and in cinematic sound design, especially after 1970. This widespread,
multi-facetted influence of ambient sound in even the farthest corner of
auditory culture is, I will maintain, not in itself neither good nor bad. To
be ambient and have ambient experiences is a fundamental part of sound
and modern auditory life. Yet, it can of course be criticized, and arguably
should be, in the many cases where ambient practices settle for unimagi-
native, standardized and uncritical forms of cultural expression. For
example, Schrimshaw raises critique of how generic, immersive practices
in recent sound art have “become increasingly prevalent” and developed
into “a new orthodoxy,” especially since the introduction of digital and
interactive artforms (Schrimshaw 2017, p. 1). And in his 2013 essay
“Against Ambiance,” Seth Kim-Cohen makes a similar critique. “I’m not
inclined,” he writes, “to let the ambient off the hook by calling it some-
thing as easily slipped as ‘escapist.’ I think the dangers are far stickier than
that. What troubles me about López’s performances, about Aitken’s pavil-
ion, about Turrell’s installations, are their implications—that is to say,
their knock-on effects—on the audiences and the discourse they attract
and simultaneously produce” (Kim-Cohen 2013, p. 13).
I by and large share Schrimshaw’s and Kim-Cohen’s critical stances
toward the reduction of ambient sound to ‘sensationalism’ and sonic
spectacles of immersivity in recent sound art. However, as I have already
suggested and will substantiate extensively below, ambient sound is a
much more complex phenomenon than a mere trend in recent sound art
can represent to any fair degree, however dominant it may be. First, the
use of ambient sound in the history of sound art since the 1960s is con-
siderably more widespread, significant and multi-facetted than suggested
 1 Introduction 21

by Schrimshaw and Kim-Cohen, both in regard to its artistic, material,

historical, technological and institutional implementations and its highly
diverse forms of expressions. Second, and more importantly, ambient
sound is a considerably more fundamental philosophical problem than a
limited focus on a specific artistic style of practice alone can satisfactorily
embrace. The ambient dimension inevitably influences our basic concep-
tions of what sound is and how it affects us. It involves and exposes
sound’s intimate role in shaping our perception of basic categories such
as space, time, environment, medium and materiality. And, more specifi-
cally, it points to the deep ambient implications of overarching historical
developments in auditory culture such as the use of technologies of sound
(re)production and mediated listening, developments in infrastructures
of sonic distribution, the introduction of sound design, the dehumaniza-
tion and de-anthropomorphization of sonic expression in music and
sound art, the sonic commercialization of public space, the emergence of
pop matter as generalized sensibility and so on. By being a driving force
in these developments, and many others, ambient sound, again, raises
key questions concerning the basic philosophical, psychological, cultural
and social significance and implications of sound in modern culture. And
if considered on this level of significance and influence, it no longer
makes much sense to be ‘against ambiance.’ Rather, we should seek to
develop new concepts and gain deeper knowledge about its multiple
implications, potentials and conditions—whether these are considered
fruitful or problematic, amiable or detestable, healthy or contagious.
“There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons”
(Deleuze 1990, p. 4).
The aim of the book is thus double. It is both to provide a general
philosophical conceptualization of ambient sound and its onto-aesthetic
implications and to distinguish its various cultural-historical manifesta-
tions, developments and sociocultural implications. My ambitions are
philosophical and aesthetic in the sense that I want to investigate the
basic notion of what it means to be and feel surrounded by sound, how
this surroundability is shaped by new strategies and technologies for
sonic production and listening, and what the deeper implications of this
development are for sonic philosophy, for sound studies, for listening and
22 U. Schmidt

auditory life, and for our conceptions of sound, materiality, technology

and the sonic environment.
At the same time, and in direct dialog with the philosophical analysis
and conceptualization, I wish to identify central events and historical
changes that can help to illuminate the complex influences of ambient
sound on art, music, film and sonic media, on central developments in
sound technology, and on everyday practices with sound and listening in
modern culture. I hope thereby to demonstrate and clarify how the mate-
rial and onto-aesthetic development of modern auditory culture in many
respects can be seen as a development toward an increasingly more ambi-
ent culture. In most part, my historical analysis is informed by a conven-
tional and probably quite unsurprising selection of material; it
undoubtedly includes some of the most well-known, well-described,
widespread and influential phenomena in the history of Western music,
sound art and auditory culture. The aim, in other words, is not to dig out
the forgotten niches and individual particularities of ambient innovation
in the history of art, music and technology. By contrast, by examining
some of the most widespread, defining and influential parts of its history,
I wish to substantiate ambient sound’s deep and pervasive influence on
modern auditory culture on a general scale. Hence, the role and influence
I wish to elucidate of ambient sound as a dominant cultural factor is
simultaneously a critical-aesthetic exploration of sound design as an over-
arching paradigm in auditory culture, of generalized pop as ambient
sound, of sonic mediatization and pervasive ‘synthetic sensibilities’ in
auditory culture, and of the ‘spectacular’ everyday aestheticization of lis-
tening, advanced by commercial industries and technological innovation.
The general onto-aesthetic shaping of culture, sensibility and subjectivity
may often start in the avantgarde and the singular, individual experiment,
but it works its deepest influence in and through the mainstream.
The book is structured in three parts. Part I, ‘Fields’ (Chaps. 2, 3, and
4), provides an analysis of the basic morphological and material charac-
teristics of ambient sound. It starts out, in Chap. 2, by exploring the
proto-ambient principle of unobtrusiveness in Erik Satie’s musique
d’ameublement, Heidegger’s notion of being-in and effects of aesthetic
centralization as key aspects of ambient sound. Chapters 3 and 4 investi-
gate in more detail how sound can expose its inherent ambient properties
 1 Introduction 23

and intensify sensations of being surrounded through basic morphologi-

cal principles such as objectivity, objectlessness, consistency, ubiquity,
immanence and a-figurative field effects. Finally, I argue that ambient
sound and music—beyond established genre conventions, cultural
spheres and historical periods—are characterized by a simple morpho-­
material principle expressed in the dynamic combination of repetition
and continuity.
In Part II, ‘Strategies’ (Chaps. 5, 6, and 7), I explore the techno-­
material conditions and onto-aesthetic strategies that guide the produc-
tion of ambient sound in art and culture. Central to the argument is the
concept of sonic mediatization, introduced in Chap. 5. In general terms,
sonic mediatization designates the morphological and material adaption
of an event to the medium in which it unfolds. In Chaps. 6 and 7, I sub-
sequently analyze and demonstrate how mediatization comprises an aes-
thetic ideal and leading design principle for the material production of
sound in avantgarde music, popular music and film sound since 1945.
This principle is, among other things, connected to a general shift in
sensibility from a reproduction aesthetics to a ‘production aesthetics’ cen-
tered around synthetic strategies for the material merging of sound,
medium and environment into a groundless total field of surround-
ing sound.
In Part III, ‘Frames,’ I analyze how ambient strategies and ideals have
shaped the spatio-material design and aestheticized use of listening tech-
nologies in modern auditory culture. In Chap. 8, I argue that listening
technologies are basically characterized by a complex double mediality
between directional and surroundable techniques, which potentially
engage listeners in sensations of simultaneously being-in a mediatized,
interior immanence and being-connected to an extra-medial environ-
ment through transmission of sonic energy and information from the
outside. In Chaps. 9, 10, and 11, I explore the ambient aspect of this
double mediality in more detail by focusing on three key areas for the
techno-material staging of listening: architectures for the acoustic pro-
duction of ambient environments (Chap. 9); amplified environments of
surroundability in music, art and cinema from mono to digital surrounds
(Chap. 10); and the current environments of everyday ambient listening
in headphones and infrastructures of sonic streaming (Chap. 11).
24 U. Schmidt

Notes
1. Sloterdijk (2004, p. 521); my translation from German of “Modernität,
das heisst: Auch der Hintergrund wird Produkt.”
2. For example, the experience-oriented economic perspective that still suf-
fuses today’s cultural industries is, as B. Joseph Pine and James H. Gilmore
argued in their influential book from 1999, in large part distinguished
by the commercial tendency to think and stage its products as an “envi-
ronmental relationship” (Pine and Gilmore 1999, p. 31). “No wonder,”
they noted, “so many companies today wrap experiences around their
existing goods and services to differentiate their offerings. […] They can
enhance the environment in which clients purchase and / or receive the
service, layer on inviting sensations encountered while in that company-­
controlled environment, and otherwise figure out how to better engage
clients to turn the service into a memorable event” (ibid., p. 15). Taking
another approach, Yves Citton has more recently argued how contempo-
rary societies have moved from attention economy to a broader and
more affectively complex “ecology of attention.” The current “ecosys-
tem,” in which media, communication, entertainment and commerce
take place and blend, Citton argues, “functions as an echo chamber,
whose reverberations ‘occupy’ our minds (in the military sense of the
term): most of the time, we think (in our ‘heart of hearts’) only what is
made to resonate in us in the media vault by the echoes with which it
surrounds us. In other words, media enthralments create an
ECHOSYSTEM, understood as an infrastructure of resonances condition-
ing our attention to what circulates around, through and within us” (Citton
2017, p. 29).
3. For an analysis of the basic, yet contradictory, habituation demanded
and nurtured by contemporary media between the new and the same,
the exciting and the boring, control and addiction, see Chun (2016). For
a discussion of media as elemental habitats, see Peters (2015). As Peters
argues: “In the life sciences, ‘media’ already means gels and other sub-
stances for growing cultures, a usage growing from the older environ-
mental meaning of medium, and in a similar spirit we can regard media
as enabling environments that provide habitats for diverse forms of life,
including other media. […] We are back to the age-old […] communi-
cation environment in which media have become equipment for living
in a more fundamental way” (2015, p. 3–5).
 1 Introduction 25

4. According to John Durham Peters, the idea “that media are message-­
bearing institutions such as newspapers, radio, television, and the
Internet is relatively recent in intellectual history. […] The elemental
legacy of the media concept is fully relevant in a time when our most
pervasive surrounding environment is technological and nature […] is
drenched with human manipulation. In a time when it is impossible to
say whether the nitrogen cycle or the Internet is more crucial to the
planet’s maintenance, I believe we can learn much from a judicious syn-
thesis, difficult though it be, of media understood as both natural and
cultural. If media are vehicles that carry and communicate meaning,
then media theory needs to take nature, the background to all possible
meaning, seriously” (Peters 2015, p. 2).
5. As Casey O’Callaghan argues, “sounds are distal events in which a
medium is disturbed or set into motion by the activities of a body or
interacting bodies” (O’Callaghan 2017, p. 3). And later: “Sounds are
public occurrences in which a moving object or interacting bodies dis-
turb a surrounding medium” (ibid., p. 8). While I am in general agree-
ment with O’Callaghan in his realist (and implicitly ecological)
understanding of sound as distal mediatic disturbance, his general phi-
losophy of sound, however, is arguably somewhat weakened by the igno-
rance of (the use of ) technology and the mediatic complexity it brings
forth. By contrast, Brian Kane (2014), discussing the ideas of Pierre
Schaeffer, also argues for an understanding of sound as an evental rela-
tionship between cause, source, effect and medium, but he does so pre-
cisely to stress the complex role of technology in mediating, and
potentially disturbing, this very relationship. As we shall see, the ‘eco-
logical’ relations between a sound’s cause, source and effect are, in a
media-ecological perspective, always also potentially synthetic, phantas-
magoric and deceptive, and artificial operability and manipulability is
part of its nature. In other words, all aspects of a sound—cause, source,
effect, medium—are ‘effects’ and can be deployed and manipulated as
such to control the affective potentials of sound. Following Mack
Hagood, we can thus distinguish three different sonic potentials: “(1)
sound is mediated as mechanical waves in an environmental medium,
such as the air; (2) sound can also be mediated and altered as a signal
through electroacoustic and digital processes of transduction and signal
processing; and (3) sound is also mediatic in itself, a sensory-spatial pro-
cess of interaction though which subjects and objects emerge in modes
26 U. Schmidt

of affective relation. Through the first potential, subjects and objects

make sound. Through the third potential, sound makes subjects and
objects. Using technologies we call electronic media, subjects leverage
the second potential of signal processing as they attempt to control the
modes of affectivity enacted through the first and third potentials”
(Hagood 2019, p. 27).
6. I introduce the term matter-medium, a concept I will develop further
throughout the book, in order to stress the coupling of the elemental
materiality of environmental mediums and the mediatic environmental-
ity of elemental matter. The elemental dimension of matter-medium
indicates the flexible, dynamic properties of environmental mediums. It
is in this respect somewhat similar to what Deleuze and Guattari call the
‘molecular’ (versus the stable, rigid properties of the ‘molar’) (Deleuze
and Guattari 1987). The elemental and molecular, of course, do not
designate any ‘naturalness’ of media. Rather, it refers to a state of granu-
lar dynamics and flexibility in a world in which “any distinction between
nature and technology is becoming blurred.” (Deleuze 1995, p. 155). As
Alexander Galloway and Eugene Tacker argue, following Deleuze, the
ambient and environmental aspects of contemporary networked media
technologies and informational protocols are in part a direct result of
their basic elemental nature. “The elemental,” they write, “is this ambi-
ent aspect of networks, the environmental aspect—all the things that we
as individuated human subjects or groups do not directly control or
manipulate. The elemental is not ‘the natural’, however (a concept that
we do not understand). The elemental concerns the variables and vari-
ability of scaling, from the micro level to the macro, the ways in which a
network phenomenon can suddenly contract, with the most local action
becoming a global pattern, and vice versa. The elemental requires us to
elaborate an entire climatology of thought” (Galloway and Thacker
2007, p. 157). For a more elaborate analysis of space as elemental matter,
see also Schmidt (2017).
7. Spitzer (1942a, p. 2). To be more exact, ambire was used as a translation
of the Greek verb periēchein, which means to ‘contain’ or ‘go around’
(peri ~ around + ēchein ~ to hold; the latter, ēchein, also being the root
of the word ‘echo’). Periēchon—a word that was never continued directly
in other languages—was a central concept in antique philosophy, first of
all in Aristotle’s cosmology where it referred to the cosmic all-­
encompassing space, and to surrounding space more generally.
 1 Introduction 27

8. Spitzer (1942a, b). In the later history of the concept of the ambient,
Spitzer notes, “this word cannot be separated from that of medium =
milieu” (Spitzer 1942a, p. 2). As an example, Spitzer describes how Isaac
Newton’s concept ‘ambient medium’ was translated into French as milieu
ambient (ibid., p. 1). He later concludes that ambiens and medium “have
come to have a strange and indissolvable relationship: indissolvable
purely, yet never constant or restful. They have met from time to time
(even in Greek the περιέχον [periēchon] was the μέσον [méson ~ middle,
medium] of perception), perhaps just to touch each other, and as if elec-
trified by this contact, each starts anew in a direction of its own” (Spitzer
1942b, p. 199).
9. To highlight just a few prominent examples, we can consider the implicit,
partial blurring of the terms environmental, ambient, ambience and atmo-
sphere in Timothy Morton’s Ecology without Nature (2007); for instance
in his description of the book’s key term “ambient poetics” as “a way of
conjuring up a sense of a surrounding atmosphere or world” (Morton
2007, p. 22). A more direct and explicit equation of ‘atmosphere’ and
‘ambience’ in environmental aesthetics is found in Yuriko Saito’s Everyday
Aesthetics (2007). And as an example of a consistent translation of the
French ambiance into the English ‘atmosphere’ in a key philosophical
text, see Jean Baudrillard’s Le système des objets (1968) and The System of
Objects (1996). For an extended discussion of the distinctions between
ambient, ambience and atmosphere in relation to sound, see Lacey
(2022, p. 87–96). And for a discussion of the same conceptual distinc-
tion in relation to aesthetic culture in general, see McCormack (2018,
p. 140, 223n).
10. Sterne (2013); Guillebaud (2017, p. 3). Schafer’s work has been widely
criticized beyond the scope of my present argument. For example, Sterne
(2003) and several others have drawn attention to Schafer’s contempt of
technological reproduction because it, according to Schafer, promotes a
state of ‘schizophonia’, and to his anti-modern preference for acoustic
hi-fi sounds (conceptualized, at least in part, with a wittingly intended
­contradiction in terms). Schafer has also been criticized for promoting a
bias towards special types of soundscapes observable in, for instance, his
“personal aversion to urbanism” (Toop 2004, p. 62), or in what Dylan
Robinson describes as a latent racism and cultural appropriation in
Schafer’s work (Robinson 2020, p. 1). In addition, mainly because of
soundscape’s connotations to visuality, flatness and distance, Guillebaud
28 U. Schmidt

proposes a distinction between soundscape and sonic “ambiance/milieu/

Umwelt” (Guillebaud 2017, p. 3–5). Although my perspective and aims
are more philosophical and aesthetic compared to Guillebaud’s ethno-
graphic approach, I will maintain a similar distinction between sound-
scape and ambient sound. Although soundscape was indeed intended by
Schafer as a broad concept for the sonic environment in all its aspects,
and despite the fact that “the term is everywhere in sound studies”
(Sterne 2013, p. 181), I prefer for the most part to use and develop other
concepts in order to avoid the ambiguities and undesirable connotations
surrounding the term.
11. As Schafer suggests: “What the soundscape analyst must do first is to
discover the significant features of the soundscape, those sounds which
are important either because of their individuality, their numerousness
or their domination” (Schafer 1994, p. 9).
12. According to Jürgen Hasse, atmospheres are perceived “as an affective
tone of a place. [...] They communicate something about the distinct
qualities of a place in a perceptible manner, they tune us to its rhythm”
and “let us comprehend without words how something is around us.
Therefore, atmospheres are also indicators of social situations” (Hasse
2014, p. 215).
13. I have explored and developed this understanding of sonic atmosphere
in more detail in Schmidt (2019).
14. For an excellent comparative analysis of the environment in Uexküll,
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze/Guattari, see Buchanan (2008).
Gibson summarizes his idea of environmental perception as something
which takes place in, and is in part conditioned by, a surrounding mate-
rial medium in Gibson (1986, p. 16–19).
15. As Uexküll writes, “the space peculiar to each animal, wherever that ani-
mal may be, can be compared to a soap-bubble which completely sur-
rounds the creature at a greater or less distance. The soap-bubble of the
extended constitutes for the animal the limit of what for it is finite, and
therewith the limit of its world; what lies behind that is hidden in infin-
ity” (Uexküll 1926, p. 42). See also Uexküll (2010, p. 69–70), where
Uexküll further expands upon the soap bubble image. Interestingly,
Susanne K. Langer later translates Uexküll’s Umwelt into “ambient”
(Langer 1967, p. 282–284). Langer’s notion of Umwelt as ambient
denotes, in Eldritch Priest’s words, “a monadic surround or vital territory
 1 Introduction 29

defined by the way an organism’s activities filter out deleterious or irrel-

evant influences” (Priest 2013, p. 50n).
16. Spitzer (1942b, p. 194). With the biological and sociological notions of
the milieu/environment in the nineteenth century by Comte, Taine and
others, Spitzer argues, the “‘surrounding element’” becomes “that which
environs, not an inert substance, as in physics, but a living being; milieu
ambiant represents the element in which an organism lives and upon
which it depends for sustenance” (ibid., p. 175). And as he later con-
cludes: “Also important, however, is the new emphasis on the mi of
milieu: this now reflects a subjective attitude of being ‘in the midst of,
surrounded by’ […]. What was once itself ‘in the middle,’ ‘a middle
place,’ now becomes a place in-­the-­middle-of-which one is! After all its
various cycles [middle place → intermediate point → place → ‘golden
means’ → medium of communication → element considered as a factor
→ surrounding element → environment considered as a factor → the
place surrounding us, in the middle of which we are], the word has come
again to have a ‘middle’ meaning. The circle is completed” (ibid.,
p. 193–194).
17. To accentuate a few examples: Douglas Kahn notes how sound “is not
only experienced as occurring in between but as surrounding the listener,
and the source of the sound is itself surrounded by its own sound. This
mutual envelopment of aurality predisposes an exchange among pres-
ences. […] Moreover, sounds can be heard coming from outside and
behind the range of peripheral vision, and a sound of adequate intensity
can be felt on and within the body as a whole, thereby dislocating the
frontal and conceptual associations of vision with an all-around corpore-
ality and spatiality” (Kahn 1999, p. 27). And in a similar vein, Karen
Collins describes how sound’s enveloping capacities have been used “to
refer to the sense of sonic spaciousness, the subjective immersion of the
listener, the fullness of sound images around a listener, the sense of being
enveloped by reverberant sound, and the sense of being surrounded by
sound. I define envelopment as the sensation of being surrounded by
sound or the feeling of being inside a physical space (enveloped by that
sound)” (Collins 2013, p. 54). For a further discussion of the historical
conception of sound as inherently spatial due to its vibratory, propaga-
tive and reflective nature, see Gascia Ouzounian (2020, p. 3–7).
18. Sterne (2003, p. 15). I will return to Sterne’s audiovisual litany in more
detail later and discuss its implications for the notion of ambient sound.
30 U. Schmidt

19. Yet, since evolution has in part predisposed humans to frontal vision (in
contrast, for example, to animals with omnidirectional vision like deer,
horses and rabbits), visual physiologists have, according to Gibson,
mainly studied the act of looking-at and tended to overlook acts of
looking-­around. This, Gibson argues, is in part due to habits of cultural
practice since “we modern, civilized, indoors adults are so accustomed to
looking at a page or a picture, or through a window, that we often lose
the feeling of being surrounded by the environment, our sense of the
ambient array of light” (Gibson 1986, p. 203). This claim, however, is
arguably challenged, and quite distinctly so, by historical developments
in modern urbanized and mediatized culture (Schmidt 2013; Crary
1990, 2001, 2013).
20. Directionality and surroundability are not only noetic acts of the inten-
tional mind, to use the phenomenological vocabulary Ihde adopts from
Husserl, but possess a noematic correlate in the phenomenal world:
“Both these dimensional aspects of auditory presence [directionality and
surroundability] are constant and copresent, but the intentional focus
and the situation varies the ratio of what may stand out. There is also a
noematic difference in relation to what kind of sound may most clearly
present itself as primarily surrounding and primarily directional without
losing its counterpart” (Ihde 2007, p. 77–78).
21. The term ‘onto-aesthetics,’ it should be noted, is not originally coined by
Kane (as he claims, taking inspiration from Nelson Goodman). It is a
term that is applied widely by Deleuze scholars and in Deleuzian inspired
scholarship—along with similar terms such as ‘onto-ethics,’ ‘onto-­
epistemology’ and ‘onto-ethology’ (Alliez 2004; Zepke 2005; Buchanan
2008; Hetrick 2019)—to emphasize the aesthetic potentials implied in
Deleuze’s realist, materialist, non-subjective, non-representational, and
in some respects anti-phenomenological, philosophy.
22. For Deleuze, sensation and the sensible is not a capacity of the sensing
subject, but something which transcends it as a potential (onto-aesthetic)
‘effect’, embedded in the empirical fabric of worldly being: “It is strange
that aesthetics (as the science of the sensible) could be founded on what
can be represented in the sensible. True, the inverse procedure is not
much better, consisting of the attempt to withdraw the pure sensible
from ­representation and to determine it as that which remains once rep-
resentation is removed (a contradictory flux, for example, or a rhapsody
of sensations). Empiricism truly becomes transcendental, and aesthetics
 1 Introduction 31

an apodictic discipline, only when we apprehend directly in the sensible

that which can only be sensed, the very being of the sensible: difference,
potential difference and difference in intensity as the reason behind qual-
itative diversity. It is in difference that movement is produced as an
‘effect,’ that phenomena flash their meaning like signs” (Deleuze 1994,
p. 56–57).
23. Ambient sound, and the tension between directionality and surround-
ability, is thus arguably a central part of the general historical develop-
ment of modern Western culture, which includes key issues related to
the onto-aesthetic management and regulation of attention. For instance,
as Jonathan Crary argues, since the nineteenth century “Western moder-
nity has demanded that individuals define and shape themselves in terms
of a capacity for ‘paying attention,’ that is, for a disengagement from a
broader field of attraction, whether visual or auditory, for the sake of
isolating or focusing on a reduced number of stimuli. That our lives are
so thoroughly a patchwork of such disconnected states is not a ‘natural’
condition but rather the product of a dense and powerful remaking of
human subjectivity in the West over the last 150 years. Nor is it insignifi-
cant now at the end of the twentieth century that one of the ways an
immense social crisis of subjective dis-integration is metaphorically diag-
nosed is as a deficiency of ‘attention’” (Crary 2001, p. 1).

Bibliography
Alliez, Eric. 2004. The Signature of The World: Or, What Is Deleuze and Guattari’s
Philosophy? London: The Athlone Press.
Augoyard, Jean-François. 2004. Vers une esthétique des ambiances. In Ambiances
en débats, ed. Pascal Amphoux, Jean-Paul Thibaud, and Grégoire Chelkoff,
17–30. Bernin: À la Croisée (Collection Ambiances, Ambiance).
Baudrillard, Jean. 1968. Le système des objets. Paris: Gallimard.
———. 1996. The System of Objects. London: Verso.
Böhme, Gernot. 1995. Atmosphäre. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp Verlag.
———. 2001. Aisthetik. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
———. 2017. The Aesthetics of Atmospheres. Edited by Jean-Paul Thibaud.
London: Routledge.
Buchanan, Brett. 2008. Onto-Ethologies: The Animal Environment of Uexküll,
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze. Albany: State Univerxity of
New York Press.
32 U. Schmidt

Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. 2016. Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New
Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Citton, Yves. 2017. The Ecology of Attention. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Collins, Karen. 2013. Playing with Sound: A Theory of Interacting with Sound and
Music in Video Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Crary, Jonathan. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in
the 19th Century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
———. 2001. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern
Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
———. 2013. 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. London and
New York: Verso.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59: 3–7.
———. 1994. Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1995. Negotiations 1972–1990. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Translated by
Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Galloway, Alexander, and Eugene Thacker. 2007. The Exploit: A Theory of
Networks. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson, James J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grimshaw, Mark, and Tom Garner. 2015. Sonic Virtuality: Sound as Emergent
Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guillebaud, Christine. 2017. Introduction: Multiple Listenings: Anthropology
of Sound Worlds. In Toward an Anthropology of Ambient Sound, ed.
C. Guillebaud, 1–18. New York and London: Routledge.
Hagood, Mack. 2019. Hush: Media and Sonic Self-Control. Durham, NC and
London: Duke University Press.
Hansen, Mark B.N. 2015. Feed-Forward: On the Future of Twenty-First-Century
Media. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Hasse, Jürgen. 2014. Atmospheres as Expressions of Medial Power. Lebenswelt 4
(1): 214–229.
Heidegger, Martin. 1996. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hetrick, Jay. 2019. Lazzarato’s Political Onto-Aesthetics. In Videophilosophy: The
Perception of Time in Post-Fordism, ed. Maurizio Lazzarato, ix–xxv. Edited and
translated by J. Hetrick. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hörl, Erich. 2017. Introduction to General Ecology: The Ecologization of
Thinking. In General Ecology: The New Ecological Paradigm, ed. E. Hörl,
1–74. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Noin hirvittävässä asennossa ja näin julmana ei kotiväki koskaan
ennen ollut nähnyt aina rauhallista ja hyvää pappaa.

Pappilan herkullisen joulupäivällisen päälle oli pudonnut rovastin

pahatuuli. Kaikkien ruokahalu oli mennyt. Karin itki ääneensä ja
Einar oli hirvittävän levoton.

— Mutta rakas… lasten kuullen. Sinä itse unhotat, että nyt on

joulu, puolusteli ruustinna ja itki.

— Kyllä tämä on hullu aika, sanon minä. Kuka meistä enää uskoo
Jumalaan?

Rovastin ääni oli särkynyt. Sillä hän ei saanut silmistään Pietua…

tuota inhottavaa miestä.

Se vei häneltä ruokahalun, vei mielen tyyneyden ja rikkoi hänen

omassa kodissaan joulurauhan ja juuri tämän joulun, joka nousi
keskipäivän korkeuteensa niin kauniina ettei vertaa.

Pietu lyhytniskaisena likasilmäisenä parran sänki kovin pitkänä

rokon puremine kalpeine naamoineen kummitteli tuossa hänen
edessään väljässä sortuukissa. Ja sitten paljaat hartiat repaleisen
nutun alta vilahtavat ja sen mustalla pohjalla liikkuu syöpäläisiä.

— Hyi… hyi… hyi!

Oliko kumma että häneltä ruokahalu meni?

Tämä perhe oli ennenkin sattunut hänen tielleen. Mutta ei hän

tullut siitä välittäneeksi, kun niitä samanlaisia oli pitäjässä useampia.

Vaikka Pietu kyllä taisi olla kaikista etumaisin.

 Rovasti nousi pöydästä. Käveli rauhatonna ja hajamielisenä
servietti leuan alla ruokasalin lattiaa. Ja perhe katsoi häntä
jännitettynä kuin suuren murhenäytelmän pääosan esittäjää
katsotaan teatterin palkeilla.

Kaikesta näkyi, että ukkoon oli isketty kirvelevä nuoli aina

sydänvereen asti. Noin poissa suunniltaan… noin vihastuneena…
noin pelättävänä ei häntä vielä milloinkaan oltu nähty.

— Etkö, rakas pappa, saata meille sanoa, olemmeko me yksin

vikapäät suureen suruusi? kysyi Karin mennen rovastin luo ja itkien
puristaen häntä kädestä.

— Miksi olette niin välinpitämättömät siitä, mikä on kalleinta

elämässä? Mutta minä unohdin teidät. Syy on kai minussakin.

Nyt vasta rovasti kertoi tapauksen hoitolassa supistaen sen

mahdollisimman vähään.

Kotiväki kuunteli sitä kauhulla. Sitten se hyväilyillään piiritti

rovastin.

Ukko jo alkoi lauhtua ja istui taas. Ruvettiin uudelleen syömään.

Mutta se sujui kuitenkin kuin pakosta.

— Saattaisi tässäkin pitäjässä olla pappina, ellei olisi noita loisia

joka talo tulvillaan. Ne ovat tämän Suomen nurkan maanvaiva, kuten
ennen heinäsirkat Egyptissä. Ne pistävät likaisen kielensä
joulurauhaasikin ja hämmentävät sen sekaisin kuin pyykkipadan. Ne
pienetkin pahat nostavat vuoriksi niskaasi ja niillä suuta on
virstamäärissä. Oo… taivas sitä julkeutta, mitä on siinä miehessä…
siinä Lois-Pietussa! Minä aivan punastuin sitä ruokottomutta ja
sydän hyppäsi nähdessäni hänen syöpäläisiään.

Näin pahan tuulensa purettuaan kotiväkensä hyväilyihin, lähti

sitten ukko rovasti Juurikkalan salolle.
III LUKU.

Ellei Pietu olisi niin sydänjuuriinsa asti kiihotettu ja hänen verensä

niin rajussa liikkeessä, paleltuisi kai hän raukka tässä purevassa
pakkasessa. Mutta hänen sisuksissaan palaa veri vihan liekeissä
tuossa kovaksi ajettua maantietä kulkiessaan kirkonkylän
koiralauman haukkumana. Jalaksen jälki aivan kiiltelee heikossa
auringon valossa. Maantie nauhana luikertaa korkealle mäelle kohti
Juurikan saloa. Sen tien valikoi Pietu huomatessaan että
kirkonkylässä jokaisen mökin ovi oli salvassa, kun hän niille koputti.

— Tuntuuko, ämmä, sinusta joululta? kysyy Pietu jälkijoukolta.

— Joulu tämä kai on muille, mutta meille kuolinpäivä. Nämä

puoskat ovat pian väsyneet ja minä tonkaksi palellun. Huu — ii — ih!
vastaa eukko ja vavahuttaa olkapäitään.

— Tässä tulee Tynkkäsen mökki. Sinne me asetumme vaikka

väkisin. Mutta entä syömistä? Olisi pitänyt syödä hoitolassa ennen
lähtöä. Vaikka silti se on niin tuota pikku pulma. Eivät ne ilkeä nähdä
meidän nälkään kuolevan… kunhan päästään vain lämpimään…

— Mennään… mennään… huokaa Tiina.

 — Mennään… kinttuja jo puree vimmatusti…

— Mutta? Askon korvalehti on aivan valkea. Jeesus! Pojan korva

on paleltunut, vaikeroi Tiina.

Askon — nuorimman pojan — oikea korvalehti on kova ja valkea.

Poika huutaa kurkun täydeltä.

Pietu puhaltaa juoksuun ja samaten muu joukko hänen perässään.

He juoksevat henkensä takaa. Pakkasen koviksi kangistamat
kenkäräsyt narskuvat heidän jaloissaan. Tiinalla sääret paljastuvat
risaisissa sukissa, kun hän kokoaa pumpulihameensa ja vetää
Askoa mukanaan kädestä.

Poika yhä huutaa, sillä hän lapsi riepu on vasta viisivuotias.

Mutta pakkanen ei heitä sääli enemmän kuin ihmisetkään. Yhä

purevammaksi se yltyy. Ohuiden riepujen läpi se pistää, pakottaa,
hyytää, kohmetuttaa. Kulkijain silmäripset, Pietun hiukset ja parta
ovat paksussa kuurassa. Ilma harmaammaksi käypi. Siinä on kylmää
jääsauhua, joka soilta kohoaa. Metsä huurteessaan on juhlallinen ja
vaikka aurinkoa on vielä joku säde lännen taivaalla, näyttäytyy
vastaisella puolella täysikuu valjun kellervänä.

— ’sus siunaa! huutaa Tiina ja yhä vikkelämmin koettaa juosta.

Ja hänen mukanaan muukin joukko. Sillä pakkanen ajaa heitä

takaa läpi luiden ja ytimien lentävänä viimana.

Jos et tunne puutetta, voisit heille nauraa. Sillä Pietu harppaa kuin
nälistynyt koni ehyt käsi edestakaisin heiluen ja aina väliin housujaan
ylös nykäisten. Tiinalla lipokkaat jaloissa lonkkuvat, jotta näkyy paljas
kantapää sukan rikkeymässä, ja Asko venyy käärönä hänen
käsipuolessaan. Pentti ja Tahvo pojat näyttävät paremmin tulevan
toimeen. He pitävät toisiaan kädestä kiinni ja kyllä ymmärtävät, mikä
arvo on nuorilla jaloilla.

Tuolla parin kilometrin takana mäen päällä istuu hankien välissä

lumisena Tynkkäsen mökki. Siellä se on lyyhyllään, kuin kumarassa.
Se on salon synkkien honkien juurella ja sen pienissä ikkunalaseissa
viivähtävät keskipäivän auringon viime säteet. Ne niissä välkkyvät
kuin majakan tuli. Nuo pienet ruudut näyttävät aivan palavan.

— O'o! Kunpa tuonne päästäisiin! vaikeroi Tiina.

— Päästään…kyllä me päästään, kun juostaan…! rohkaisee Pietu.

— Kunhan jaksaisin. Mutta minun ruumiini läpi leikkaa pakkanen

kuin sahan terällä. Voi, Jesus, kuinka minua palelee! Kunpa olisi
kohta ymmärretty edes painua tänne mökille. Mutta siellä kirkolla
harhailtiin ja ovia turhaan kolkutettiin. Kuukausi sitten noille
kirkonkylänkin ihmisrukille saarnattiin viimeisestä tuomiosta. Ja näin
on nyt kylmä sydän joulunakin lähimäiselle, parkuu Tiina.

Tuo Pietun liikanimi se pelotti kirkonkylän ihmisiä avaamasta ovia

Pietun joukolle.

Tulevat sotkemaan heidän joulusiistinsä!

Kuuluu kulkusen helinä. Rovasti ajaa Juurikkalan salolle

hartaushetken pitoon.

Pietu hyppää reen kannaksille. Rovastia inhottaa. Nyt se kai

pudottaa syöpäläisensä hänen kaulalleen.
 Hän tyrkkää kyynärpäällään Pietua pois, joka juuri pyytelee, että
rovasti ottaisi heidät rekeensä Tynkkäsen mökille asti.

Pietu tuupertuu tielle, kun renkikin lyö samassa ruoskalla hevosta.

— Pietu oli äsken kovin ylpeä. Joutaa nyt palella, huutaa rovasti
Pietulle jälkeen.

Hänen sieluunsa kohoaa melkein salainen hyvityksen tunne, että

näin pian Herra antoi hänelle äskeisen vihamiehensä jalkainsa
astinlaudaksi!

Pietu muistaa irvistää ja ärjäisee:

— Perkele se yhdessä rovastin kanssa ajaa hartaushetken pitoon.

Annappa jättää ihmiset viluun kuolemaan.

Rovastin reki lipuu jo kaukana. Näkyvät reestä vain suuret

susiturkit ja uppokuuma puuhkalakki.

Rovasti tuntee kuitenkin pian omantunnon soimausta. Mutta hän

lohduttaa itseään sillä, ettei niillä ole enään pitkältä mökille.
Juoskoot! Ja tämä äskeinen teko häneltä oli tarpeellinen Pietun
ojennukseksi, kuritukseksi ja nuhteeksi. Se oli erityisesti Herralta
Jumalalta niin tarkoitettukin.

Mutta Pietun joukko juoksee.

— Voi… voi… voi meidän jouluamme! Me olemme kadotuksen

lapset… me raukat, joita ihmiset pahemmin vierovat kuin järjettömiä
elukoita. Kiveä kovempi saattaa olla ihmisen sydän kun se siksi
rupeaa. Vaikka Kristus on meidätkin kalliisti lunastanut, niin ihmiset
meitä potkivat pahemmin kuin koiraa, huokailee Tiina ja kokee
ponnistaa voimiaan.

— Mitä sinä turhia parut? Eihän tässä vielä ole niin hengen
hätää…
Tuolla on mökki. Siellä on lämmintä… ja leipääkin. Helei, ämmä!
Juokse, kyllä jaksat! Ja, pojat, nyt täysi mustalaisen kyyti, kokee
Pietu panna leikiksi, vaikka tunteekin, että nyt jo on kuolema
kantapäillä.

Sillä häntä itseäänkin puistattaa kuin veret jäätyisivät tuossa

paikassa.

Jalat tuntuvat kangistuvan.

Pentti ja Tahvo pitäen toisiaan käsistä näyttävät hyyteisiltä

rääsykääröiltä, jotka vikkelästi liikkuvat mökkiä kohti.

— Mutta Asko! Voi taivaan jumala Askoa! Nyt… nyt, Pietu, tulee
rangaistus, kun sinä herjasit pappia… ja niin hyvää pappia… Asko
raukka! huutaa äkkiä Tiina ja kallistuu Askoa kohti.

— Asko… rakas Asko… kuule… kuule… rakas lapsi!

Mutta Asko ei kuule mitään. Retkottaa vain kankeana äitinsä

käsipuolessa.

— Asko on kuollut! parkuu Tiina vihlovasti.

— Pääsi jouluna taivaaseen. Juostaan… juostaan! kehottaa Pietu.

Tiina tempaa Askon syliinsä. Yhä vinhempää kyytiä he painavat.

Tiina itkee ääneensä ja valittaa:

 — Voi sentään meitä, joita ihmiset hylkivät… voi sentään! Eikö
maan päällä olekaan rakkautta, vaikka siitä kirkoissa saarnataan? Ei
ole… ei ole… kuollaan kaikki!

Tiina tuupertuu Asko sylissä keskelle kovaa tietä ja jää siihen.

Hänen silmänsä villinä leiskaavat ja rinta huokuu. Mielenliikutus on
lopettanut hänen viimeiset voimansa.

— Minä tahdon mennä yhdessä Askon kanssa hautaan… mennä

taivaaseen Jeesuksen jalkain juureen ja huutaa: ei ole maan päällä
rakkautta… ei ole! Minä tahdon mennä Askon kanssa taivaaseen. Ei
siellä ole murhetta… ei vilua… ei kyyneleitä… vaan laulu kai… ku…
uu. Jeesus! Nyt… tulee… ku… o… le… ma.

*****

Asko lepää hänen sylissään iäistä untaan. Kyyneleet ovat

jäätyneet pikku miehen silmiin, jotka ovat lasikkaat kuin ammutun
jäniksen. Ei värähdystäkään hennossa ruumiissa. Kaikki on lopussa.

Nyt Pietu säikähti.

— Pojat! Joutuun mökkiin! Heti, muuten ämmä kuolee… tuokaa

sieltä apua… tuokaa!

Pietu jää Tiinaa hoivaamaan. Hän itkee. On melkein luonnotonta,

että hänkin itkee.

Pentti ja Tahvo kokevat lentää yli voimainsa. He tuupertuvat

hankeen silmälleen… nousevat ylös… taas lankeavat… nousevat…
taas lankeavat… ja taas nousevat… lankeavat… eivätkä enää
nousekaan.
 Mutta mökistä on jo nähty, mikä on kysymyksessä. Tuvan täysi
ihmisiä, toiset paljain päin, juoksevat henkensä takaa apuun.

Tiina Askon ruumis sylissä vedetään kelkalla mökkiin ja miehet

kantavat sinne Pentin ja Tahvon.

Askoa hierotaan lumella. Mutta ruumis on ruumis. Halkovajaan

viedään poika riepujen sisässä.

Tiina toipuu. Hänen jaloistaan vedetään lipokkaita. Mutta silloin

hän parkaisee kuin olisi saanut puukon piston. Miehet leikkaavat
veitsellä kengät rikki.

Silloin nähdään, että varpaat seuraavat mukana. Ne ovat

paleltuneet!

Tiina taas parkaisee ja pyörtyy. Pietu sanatonna vapisee ja pitää

kädessään lipokasta, missä on Tiinan varpaiden riekaleita.

— Voipa sentään… voipa sentään, päivittelee Pietu.

Tiina nostetaan sänkyyn. Ja silloin putoaa kahden markan

hopearaha… Pietun paitaraha… hänen puristetusta kädestään,
jonka kämmenen ja sormien väliin se oli kiinni jäätynyt.

Pietu hyppää sitä ottamaan.

— Hopearaha!

Pietu katsoo arasti Tiinaan. Olisiko Tiina tämän jostain luvatta

ottanut?

Mutta Tiina ei huomaa nyt mitään. Hän on tuiki väsynyt ja vain

huokuu sängyssä, jossa häntä lumella hierotaan.
IV LUKU.

Rovastilla oli hartauskokouksessa rauhaton mieli. Miten lie käynyt

Pietun joukon?

Paluumatkallaan hän poikkesi Tynkkäsen mökkiin.

Täällä Tiina makasi sängyssä. Rovasti kumartui häntä katsomaan

ja koetti Tiinan suonta. Ja taas kumartui ja tarkasti paleltuneita
jalkateriä.

Ja häntä kauhistutti. Tässä oli edessä jotain hirveän ikävää. Sillä

kyllä asia tiedoksi tulee.

Rovasti antoi Pietulle viiden markan setelin. Meni vielä lähelle

Pietua, jonka seteli oli tehnyt aivan sovinnolliseksi ja kysyi:

— Onko Pietu minulle vielä nurja?

— Eikös tuota. Eihän rovasti tykkää pahaa. Sitä kun ihminen

nokkautuu, niin perkele työntää moskaa suuhun, puhuu Pietu
tosissaan ja hänen silmänsä kiiluvat.

— Pyydä nyt Pietu rovastilta anteeksi! Lankea polvillesi hänen

eteensä ja anteeksi pyydä, komentaa Tiina, joka on niin hyvillään
siitä, että rovastin lämpöiset pehmeät kädet häntä hoitivat ja tuo
hieno herra kumartui häntä kohti.

— Ämmä! sanoo Pietu ja katsoo Tiinaan kuin häpeissään.

— Pietu… Pietu! Helvettiin menet, kun et vieläkään kadu.

Polvillesi,
Pietu! määrää Tiina.

— Uskaltaako rovasti antaa minulle kätensä? kysyy Pietu.

— Mitä sitten?

— Niin minä pyydän anteeksi. Rovasti ojentaa kätensä. Pietu

polvillaan sanoo:

— Mutta miten minä anon?

— Lue synnintunnustus! Pietu lukee:

— Minä vaivainen syntinen ihminen, joka synnissä siinnyt ja

syntynyt olen ja vielä koko elinaikani syntistä elämää pitänyt…
tunnustan sinulle, herra rovasti, että tuota tein väärin, kun pappia
jouluna muka haukuin. Annattehan anteeksi?

— Annan.

Pietu luki vielä päälle rovastin pyynnöstä Isämeidän ja sitten hän

nousi. Siinä rukouksen lukemisessa sai Tiina monesti auttaa, sillä
Pietu solkkasi ja solkkasi.

Tuvan rahvas seisoi kädet ristissä kallella päin tämän liikuttavan

toimituksen aikana.
 Sitten rovasti lähti. Koko tuvan täysi häntä pihalle saattaa. Ja Pietu
niiden mukana. Kun rovasti koskettaa lakkiinsa hyvästiksi, kumartaa
rahvas.

Erityisen kohtelias kokee Pietu olla.

— Terveisiä ruustinnalle, huutaa hän vielä jälkeen.

Sinne pakkasen sekaan painuu rovasti. Hän hyräilee itsekseen

virttä reessä istuessaan.

Mutta sitten tunnin toista takaa soivat kulkuset uudelleen. Rovastin

hevonen porhaltaa taas mökille ja siinä on itse ruustinna.

Renki kantaa sisälle suuren korin ja ruustinna puhuu liikutetulla

äänellä:

— Tämän on hyvä Jumala Pietun joukolle joululahjaksi lähettänyt.

Sitten hän kyselee tapauksesta, toivottaa terveyttä ja poistuu.

Kun Pietu avaa ruokakorin, tulee hänen silmiinsä ensin kiiltävä

mustakantinen uusi testamentti.

Pietu irvistää ja nostaa kirjan penkille.

— Tuon olisi saanut jättää itselleen luettavaksi, puhuu.

Sitten hän saa käteensä paperikäärön.

Siinä on neljä voista torttua. Pietun silmät loistavat. Hän Tiinalle

näyttää ja samalla kieltään maiskuttaa.

Pentti ja Tahvo ryntäävät torttuihin käsiksi.

 — Pois nuoret herrat! Vasta sitten kun ensin on syöty mujeita. Kai
niitäkin täällä on.

Nyt saa Pietu esille palvatun sian lavan. Hän sitä heiluttaa taas
Tiinalle.

— Kost' jumala, ääntää Tiina vuoteelta,

— Nyt tulee leipiä, puhuu Pietu.

— Kost' jumala.

— Nyt tulee mujeita.

— Kost' jumala.

— Nyt voikämpäle.

— Kost' jumala.

— Nyt vehnäistä.

— Kost' jumala.

— Nyt kahvia.

— Kiitoksia, ruustinna. Vielä kahviakin. Oi sentään… miten se

ruustinna on hyvä, puhuu Tiina.

— Nyt sokuria.

— Kost' jumala. Onko topan pohjaa? Tiina kysyy.

Pietu seisoo hämmästyneenä näiden aarteiden edessä.

 — No kannattipa vähän palellakin, kun saat tällaista ruokaa!

— Kunpa Askokin olisi ennättänyt näitä syödä ennenkuin kuoli,

huokaa
Tiina.

— Ei se poikamurikka olisi sitten kuollutkaan. Eipä suinkaan. Ei

pakkanen pysty siihen, joka syö herrasruokia. Niihin on kätketty
voimaa, jota pakkanen ei jaksa purra, haastaa Pietu.

— Nyt emäntä keittää kahvia, kun sitä kerran meilläkin on, pyytää
Tiina ja laittelee jalkoihinsa kellervää väkevälle tuoksuvaa voidetta,
mitä rovasti oli lähettänyt.

— On kuin käärmeen myrkkyä se sinun keltainen tervasi,

huomauttaa Pietu.

— Mutta millä me rovastilaisten hyvyyden palkitsemme? puhuu

Tiina.

— Niin. Ja minua jo hävettää, kun ukkoa hoitolassa haukuskelin.

— Mitä Pietu sanoi? kysyy naurusuin mökin isäntä.

— Ei sitä kehtaa tällaisen viljan äärellä sanoa.

— On niin rumaa?

— On.

— Pietu se osaa sanoa pistävästi, että se tuikkaa kuin neulalla

suoraan vereen asti.

— Nälkä ja vilu… ne, isäntä, opettavat teillekin kaikkea.

 — Kaikkea muuta, mutta ei työntekoa, pistää isäntä.

— Minäkö en tee työtä? Hää! Monta heinäurakkaa niitin viime

kesänäkin.

— No missä palkat?

— Joukon kanssa syötiin. Vasta atventilta menin hoitolaan.

— Missä siihen asti olit?

— Ikolan tuvan oviloukossa. Mutta kun siellä oli jo entisiä loisia ja

minulta eväät loppuivat, niin maailmalle käskivät.

— Et sinä tee tarpeeksi työtä. Puisit ahosta. On sitä työtä yli

joulunkin.

Pietu meni torttu kädessä isännän nenän eteen.

— En pui… en se soi puikaan. Kuusikymmentä penniä maksavat

ahoksella. Koira sillä puikoon. Ja on sitten niin nokista. Minulla on
huonot keuhkot.

— Ja laiskan suonet, nauraa isäntä.

— Nyt on joulu. Pitääkö isäntä tortuista? Et ole elämäsi päivinä

syönyt näin rasvaista taikinaa. Mutta nyt saat Pietu Pippurilta, kun
annat joulurauhan. Näethän, että evästä on… parempaa kuin sinulla.

Isäntä, jota kunnioitettiin huopamestarin nimellä eikä ollut niinkään

vähävarainen, kieltäytyi tortusta.

— Syö itse saamasi! sanoi.

 Pietun joukko söi ja ryyppäsi päälle kahvia, jota mökin emäntä
keitti.

Siinä oviloukossa oli jo ennestään toinen loisperhe. Se äänetönnä

murjotti ja kävi sen kovin kateeksi Pietun joukon herkutteleminen.
Miehen nimi oli Henttu Vänskä ja hän oli kirkonkylän herrastalojen
sekä kansakoulun puunpilkkoja talviseen aikaan. Tästä hän ylpeili
herrastyönä muka. Noita suuria ja puista runsaita halkovajoja tuntui
hän rakastavan persoonallisella rakkaudella. Talvi-iltoina tarinoi hän
mökissä työstä tultuaan itselleen ja muille hauskuudeksi näistä
halkovajoista. Taki tilaan hän kuvasi koulun halkovajan, joka oli
kaikista suurin. Mutta eivät osattomiksi jääneet muutkaan.
Nautinnolla hän kertoi, miten paljon milloinkin oli pilkotuita puita
itsekussakin halkovajassa, miten suurissa ja kauneissa pinoissa ne
siellä olivat, joita hän vain osasi latoa. Nuo vajat ja niiden halkopinot
olivat jokaiselle mökin asukkaalle perin tutut, vaikka eivät olleet
niissä koskaan käyneetkään. Sillä kyllä ne Henttu Vänskä oli heille
kuvannut ja yhä uudelleen kuvaisi. Hän eli vain haloissa ja erittäinkin
pienissä pilkotuissa valkotuohisissa koivuhaloissa.

Vänskällä oli vaimo ja kolme lasta. Talon omaa joukkoa oli

kahdeksan henkeä. Kun nyt Pietun väki tuli lisäksi, oli heitä kaikkiaan
tässä pienenpuoleisessa tuvassa seitsemäntoista ihmistä.

Eipä ihme että tuvassa jo kovasti tuoksui ihmishiki.

Kun Pietu oli syönyt, alkoi hän katsella uutta testamenttia. Korea
kirja se oli ja se oli hänen kädessään hyvin outo, kuin kultakello
kerjäläisen kourassa.

Eikä hän ymmärtänyt, mitä hän sillä oikein tekisi. Muut kai sitä
semmoista lukivat, mutta hänestä tuntui niin hassunkuriselta
ajatellakin itseään testamentti kourassa muka sitä lukemassa. Se
aivan nauratti Pietua. Ja toisekseen hän oli kovin huono lukija. Aina
lukusilla oli siitä lukemisesta ollut rovastin kanssa nätinää.

Tiina kyllä luki. Mutta olihan niitä muiden kirjoja Tiinalle luettavaksi.
Tämä nyt oli heille liian ylellinen.

Pietu meni kirjoineen huopamestarin emännän pateille.

— Eikö emäntä tätä osta? Tämä joutaisi myödä, puheli Pietu.

— Sekö? Pietu sinä, varoitti Tiina.

— Ämmä, suu kiinni! ärjäisi Pietu ja nosti miehen tavalla

housujaan.

Emäntä katseli kirjaa. Pietu sitä kehui ja kehui.

— Pidä tuossa suusi kiinni! Ymmärrän itsekin, tokaisi emäntä.

— Sen kyllä tiedän. Mutta kun se on noin kiiltävä ja korea, niin en

malta olla ylistämättä.

Täällä kannessa on jotain kirjoitettuna. Pee sanoo pee… ii sanoo

ii… pie… Lue sinä, Maikko!

Maikko, emännän kansakoulua käypä tyttö, luki vitkaan:

— Pietu Pippurille ja hänen perheellensä. "Katso minä seison

ovella ja kolkutan".

Sen jäljessä oli vielä joitakin kirjaimia ja numeroita, joita tyttö ei

ymmärtänyt. Ne ilmoittivat lähdettä tuolle raamatun lauseelle.
 — ’sus siunaa! Ja semmoista kaunista sinä, Pietu, aiot myödä!
valittaa taas Tiina.

Pietun veret jo nousivat. Mies vanhan ja väljän sortuukin alla

kasvoi.

— Ei meillä ole varaa pitää herrastavaraa! äkäili Pietu.

Katsottiin tuota kirjoitusta. Se oli rovastin herramaista käsialaa.

— Antaako emäntä viisikymmentä penniä?

— En anna niin paljoa.

— No neljäkymmentä?

— Enkä niinkään. Kaksikymmentäviisi penniä.

— Suutarin markan.

— Enkä halua ostaa ensinkään, kun siinä on tuo kirjoitus. Siinä

lukee sinulle eikä minulle.

— Kirjoitus hävitetään.

Pietu puukonkärjellä hankasi kirjoituksen näkymättömäksi.

Ja nyt tehtiin kauppa. Mutta Tiina itki.

Pietu tyytyväisenä pani pitkäkseen ja nukkui. Pian hän kuorsasi

niin, että sieraimet järisivät.

Tieto tästä hirvittävästä paleltumistapauksesta kiersi pian kylästä

kylään ja joutui sanomalehtiin. Niin tuli se kuvernöörinkin korviin.
 Lukkari kunnallislautakunnan esimiehenä sai ankaran varoituksen.
Paperi kädessä hyppäsi lukkari heti hoitolaan johtajan luo
haukkumaan tätä.

Ja taas he antoivat toisilleen kauniita ja voimakkaita ripityksiä.

Pietua joukkoineen ahdistettiin takaisin hoitolaan. Mutta Pietu

sanoi jyrkästi: "En mene!"

— Millä elät? kysyttiin.

— Sittenpähän nähdään, kun käräjiin päästään. Ei Juhmakka

pääsekään noin vain. Nuorempana olin jo jukuripää, mutta nyt
minulla on sarvet. Ja minä pusken.

Pietu nauroi viisaan naurua.

— Kyllä nyt pusket liian lujaa miestä. Menet suovatta saunaan.

Eivät kestä voimasi, vakuuttaa mökin isäntä.