As witnessed by Walter Benjamin in the early twentieth century, the “state of emergency” in which we still live is not the exception but the rule. In 2018, a research project called Lyden af Danmark (The Sound of Denmark) was launched, aiming at collecting sounds recorded by people living in Denmark. Of 155 recordings and 294 individual sounds uploaded, birds singing and lawnmowers seem to dominate. However, the refugee asylums scattered around the country remain silent (or unrecorded). From this silence the editorial idea for this special section grew as a question: How can sound-based work or phenomena function as evidence in the situation we are in? Are all the crises we are witnessing crises in representing nonhuman and human relations based on the mediation of data? The focus of this special section is to look beyond the visual and ask what constitutes evidence and what else may inform it. The section follows a line of inquiry into the construction of evidence as “a moral activity”; the context of representation becomes an essential point of attention when turning data into knowledge. The medium by which data is represented is significant to both our scientific research of data and our scientific understanding of the world, in addition to the common public’s ideas of what data is. This section presents, in seven different approaches in the hybrid field between scientific and artistic practices, how sound is a constituent of our ideas and understandings of the world as a “constituted” and “transformative reality.” Soundas-evidence operates a paradigm of aesthetic approximation different from earlier aesthetic paradigms. It depends on technological mediation. In her contribution, Janna Holmstedt suggests, “the transformative role of sound and listening troubles Western knowledge systems in fruitful ways.” Laura Beloff asks: What does it mean to hear through technological mediation? Louise Mackenzie recognizes that technological layering opens up “possibilities in thinking about how scientific information is interpreted and whether one perspective is necessarily more valid than another.” In this way, scientific and artistic practices are intertwined in the construction of evidence. When approaching sound as evidence, the paradigm of aesthetic approximation is dependent on technological mediation. It is my claim that aesthetic approximation enables the artist-researcher to approach sound as evidence in more general terms but, at the same time, creates a distance from “the existing” and the “moral process” to which the artistresearcher aspires. I see aesthetic approximation as entangled in (at least) five paradigms of meaning creation, all of them critiquing positivist epistemology and the claim of scientific and technological “objectivity” (see Fig. 1 in the expanded version of this introduction in the online supplements). As Tullis Rennie demonstrates, “practical philosophical intervention asks each of us to challenge the status quo.” Rennie suggests adopting Salomé Voegelin’s proposed sonic imaginary mode of listening. This section connects to evidence as a moral activity. Trial-and-error investigation and the highly self-constructed mode of interpreting findings from those investigations (Beloff) speaks to the transformative potentialities (Holmstedt) of approximating the world through technological layering (Mackenzie) and fragile transductions (Marie Højlund/ Morten Riis) with which the artist-researchers navigate the social resonance of imaginary listening modes (Rennie), actively attempting to attune the nonhuman and human field, negotiating crisis through sound as evidence. Elsewhere, Stephanie Loveless proposes the flaneuserie sonore, feminist soundwalking, as a way to recontextualize the “practices of listening and walking,” and Freya Zinovieff and Gabriela Aceves Sepúlveda further demonstrate that “to listen attentively to the sonic is to situate oneself at the intersection of geopolitics and sensory perception” in what they term Anthropocene Contact Zones. All the articles assert the need to reimagine what evidence is—reclaim its politics—through sound.

中文翻译：

---

专题介绍：声音为证

正如沃尔特·本雅明在 20 世纪初所见证的那样，我们仍然生活在其中的“紧急状态”不是例外，而是规则。2018 年，一项名为 Lyden af Danmark（丹麦之声）的研究项目启动，旨在收集丹麦居民录制的声音。在上传的 155 个录音和 294 个单独的声音中，鸟儿歌唱和割草机似乎占主导地位。然而，分散在全国各地的难民庇护所仍然保持沉默（或没有记录）。从这种沉默中，这个特殊部分的编辑想法变成了一个问题：基于声音的工作或现象如何在我们所处的情况下充当证据？我们正在目睹的所有危机都是基于数据中介来代表非人类和人际关系的危机吗？这个特别部分的重点是超越视觉，询问什么构成证据，还有什么可以提供信息。本节对将证据构建为“一种道德活动”进行了探究；在将数据转化为知识时，表示的上下文成为一个重要的关注点。除了普通大众对数据是什么的看法之外，数据所代表的媒介对于我们对数据的科学研究和我们对世界的科学理解都具有重要意义。本节介绍了科学与艺术实践混合领域的七种不同方法，声音如何成为我们对世界作为“构成”和“变革性现实”的想法和理解的组成部分。声音证据运行的审美近似范式不同于早期的审美范式。这取决于技术调解。在她的贡献中，Janna Holmstedt 建议，“声音和听力的变革性作用以卓有成效的方式困扰着西方知识体系。” 劳拉·贝洛夫问道：通过技术调解来倾听意味着什么？Louise Mackenzie 认识到技术分层开辟了“思考如何解释科学信息以及一种观点是否一定比另一种观点更有效的可能性。” 通过这种方式，科学和艺术实践在证据构建中交织在一起。当接近声音作为证据时，审美近似的范式依赖于技术中介。我的主张是，美学近似使艺术家-研究人员能够以更一般的术语将声音作为证据来处理，但同时，与艺术家研究人员所渴望的“现有”和“道德过程”产生了距离。我认为美学近似与（至少）五种意义创造范式纠缠在一起，所有这些范式都批评实证主义认识论和科技“客观性”的主张（参见在线补充介绍的扩展版本中的图 1） . 正如 Tullis Rennie 所展示的那样，“实际的哲学干预要求我们每个人挑战现状。” Rennie 建议采用 Salomé Voegelin 提出的声音想象聆听模式。本节将证据作为一种道德活动联系起来。试错调查和解释这些调查结果的高度自我构建模式 (Beloff) 说明了通过技术分层 (Mackenzie) 和脆弱的转导 (Marie Højlund/ Morten Riis) 逼近世界的变革潜力 (Holmstedt)艺术家和研究人员以此驾驭想象中的聆听模式（Rennie）的社会共鸣，积极尝试协调非人类和人类领域，通过声音作为证据来应对危机。在其他地方，Stephanie Loveless 提出了 flaneuserie sonore，女权主义的声音行走，作为一种重新定位“聆听和行走的实践，”和 Freya Zinovieff 和 Gabriela Aceves Sepúlveda 进一步证明，“专心聆听声音就是将自己置于地缘政治和感官知觉的交汇处”，他们称之为“人类世接触区”。所有文章都声称需要通过声音重新想象什么是证据——恢复其政治性。