Will Brehm  0:00
Peter Browning, welcome to FreshEd.

Peter Browning  0:21
Thank you, Will. Hi.

Will Brehm  0:51
So, congratulations on your Flux episode. I just absolutely loved it, and we’re going to talk all about it today. And in fact, I kind of want to start where your Flux episode left off, sort of ends. And you say at the end that your podcast in particular, is not aesthetic. That it’s not meant to sort of sound nice. And in fact, you draw attention to the fact that mediation is a political act. And I love that phrase, that mediation is this political act, that if everything is sort of mediated through technology, then it can be mediated otherly. Can you talk me through this like, why was this important to you? Why do you see your podcast as not being aesthetic and that was trying to mediate otherly?

Peter Browning  1:34
Yeah, thanks for that, Will. And I think the coda that is stuck on the end is kind of a backstage moment. So, that comes from a discussion that I was having in a production meeting with Joh, and it was just this kind of, I guess, uneasiness that I had with the episode. It was sounding too nice, and I wanted to put in some more of that disjointedness and jankiness, because I think what I’m trying to achieve, or part of what I’m trying to achieve in the episode, is to create that sense of unease and to draw attention to the fact that this is produced -it’s overly produced, it’s mediated in some ways- in order to denaturalize the technology. Because, I think, you know, in academic production, the technologies that we normally use, of writing, the genres that we usually use, those academic texts, are so naturalized that we don’t even see them. And we don’t see them, and they’re rooted in colonial, patriarchal Western histories that limit the sort of knowledge that can be produced or communicated in and through them. So, I think by denaturalizing the technologies that we use, then, for me, that’s where the political comes in, because it’s about the politics of knowledge production and dissemination and what knowledge sits within these kinds of technologies. And I think, you know, there’s a danger of if that critique becomes too aesthetic, because then it loses some of its power, I think, because it in itself becomes naturalized.

Will Brehm 1:37
But in some ways your episode is aesthetic, right? I mean, the sounds you do use, you know, they’re jarring, they’re clangy, and so, you know, can you talk me more about the aesthetics of your episode and where they did come in and how you put them together?

Peter Browning 3:05
Sure, yeah. So, there’s an aesthetic in the sense that there’s, I guess, an intentionality behind the kind of texture of all the sounds But it is, yeah, it’s a jarring aesthetic. So, I’m really kind of inspired in the piece -and I think, you know, at one point we get another backstage moment which says this right by Bertolt Brecht and his theater and this idea of alienation. So, you know, for Brecht in his theater, the idea is that, contrary to classical theater, you don’t want to suspend disbelief, but rather you want to draw attention to the fact that this is make believe in order that the audience can take a stance and can reflect critically on what’s happening. So, similarly, I kind of wanted to try to create a sort of sound texture that would stop this mindless listening that we often -I mean, I do it- that we all do with podcasts. That we listen whilst we’re doing the washing up, or always driving the car, and really kind of force listening that alienates us from the expectations a little bit to then capture attention, I guess. And then once our attention has been captured, that we can think about what it is that’s going on here and maybe reflect a bit more critically on that.

Will Brehm  4:13
You know, in your episode, you mentioned how you were in theater. You brought up Brecht and how sort of his notion of theater influenced what you’ve produced. You’ve used, even in this conversation, metaphors about sort of theater. You know, these sort of behind the scenes, sort of moments. Could you tell me a little bit more about your background in theater and how that sort of has shaped you as an academic?

Peter Browning  4:39
Yeah. I mean, I think to talk about a background in theater might be overstating it a little, but it’s something that’s always interested me. And it’s really like, you know, been a passion of mine. But interestingly, you know, within -so, I have a training in sociolinguistics, and within sociolinguistics, you know, there are approaches that  -you know, the dramaturgical approach by Erving Goffman that looks at the way that we interact socially, and using the language of dramaturgy, backstage, front stage, cueing. And it does perhaps kind of influence the way that I see the social world, kind of through this representational, theatrical lens.

Will Brehm  5:13
What about the episode? Your Flux episode also sort of touches on ethnography, and I think you’ve also done a little bit of ethnographic work in your sociolinguistics research, you know. So, how does theater? How do some of these sorts of meta moments that you’ve used where you know the sound is of like the sound engineer at the University College London, where you recorded some of your narration. Like at the beginning of the episode, and at the end of the episode, I think we actually hear this engineer, the sound engineer. And so, there’s these sorts of meta moments that sort of take you out of reality, but are also, you know, of course, deeply real, but sort of don’t fit in so nicely into the episode. How do some of these moments connect in your mind to some of the work you’ve done with ethnography, if at all?

Peter Browning  5:57
Yeah. So, I think for me, the kind of connection that brings all these things together -so, the theatrical, the meta moments, the ethnographic- is sort of like representation. So, for me, it’s kind of this question of representation and reality, and the frustrations of never being able to represent the real. There’s always a layer there. But in some ethnographic work, that layer of representation is sometimes backgrounded. And I think it’s really important, analytically and ethically, to bring that more to the surface. So, those meta moments where we can really show you know, this is a representation, they’re kind of moments of reflexivity. And I think they help to draw attention to -especially in the episode- to this idea of form and function, or form and content. So, I think something that perhaps I bring from my interest in theater, or just something I have is this interest in the form telling part of the message in the way that the content tells part of the message. So, there being a synergy or a continuity there between the two things.

Will Brehm  5:57
I feel like you did that so well when you brought in Jon Holmes from The Skewer. And I don’t know if listeners have heard of The Skewer, but I would highly recommend the podcast. But maybe, can you tell us, you know, what is The Skewer? And then how did you sort of skewer Jon Holmes in your episode?

Peter Browning  7:19
Yes. So, The Skewer is one of my favorite podcasts. It’s up there in my top listens, and Jon, and I say in the episode, it’s a satirical river of sound. You know, it sits for me in that world of the mockumentaries of Acorn Antiques, or Philomena Cunk, Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe. It’s all of that space which is satirical, and it’s drawing attention to the rules of the game. By over mediatizing, in a way, it’s really highlighting the way in which, in the case of The Skewer, the news is usually packaged. And it does that through an absurdist quality. It really brings this kind of mash up element, which I’m really inspired by, and I was really pleased to get Jon Holmes to participate, to have his voice. I sent emails to a number of my top 10 podcasts, but Jon was the one who saved me and came back to me.

Will Brehm  8:11
So, walk me through the process. You sent emails out to people, Jon replies to the email, but he actually sent an audio file.

Peter Browning  8:17
Yes, you know, I’d ask just for some input that I was exploring questions around podcasting, there was any sort of reflection that they had about that, or about this nexus between entertainment, art, and research. And Jon came back with this really eloquent, long audio, which I’m very thankful for that I chopped up and did a skewering too, in the way that he does. So, it’s kind of used his own process, or the process of the podcast that he produces on his own audio to create that imagined conversation between the two of us.

Will Brehm  8:49
And it’s hilarious. It is one of the funniest scenes in your episode, I think.

Peter Browning  8:53
I’m glad that you find it. I think there’s like that absurdist humor is a bit Marmite, but I mean, I find it pretty funny.

Will Brehm  8:58
I find it very funny. I’ve listened to your episode so many times at this point, and I always sort of laugh out loud when it comes to that. Like it’s that moment where he catches you off guard, like you’re so sort of deep in your talking about podcasting, and then it’s like, oh, oh, got a got a phone call. It’s hilarious. You brought up this notion of the nexus of research, entertainment, and art, and I’d love for you to talk me through, you know, why is this important to you when it comes to podcasting and sound and what you sort of show in your episode?

Peter Browning  9:32
Yes. So, this was so again, in this kind of one idea of montage and pastiche, it’s a quote that I took from a previous FreshEd episode. So, it’s kind of really inspired by that, perhaps a reflection on that nexus could bring. Because I think -and it comes across in the hope in the montage at the end, that there isn’t, you know, we don’t agree as academics, as practitioners, on what podcasting is, or what it can be, but I think there’s a really productive discussion to be had there. But more than a discussion, I think there’s an important experimentation and an important praxis that we can try to fill that space with. So, I think, you know, these specific categories I find interesting, because I think they allow us to really interrogate what it means to do research or to disseminate research. What is the ontology that we are working with there? And I personally think arts-based practices really have a lot to offer in terms of engaging with affect and getting across a kind of a sense of the research, or a feeling of the research. But I do think alongside that this idea of entertainment is a bit problematic. And Uta Papen says that in the montage and I really love it when she says, I’m struggling with this term, right? Because it’s something I do want to try and engage with, because I’m aware that, you know, the way that information is consumed in the here and now is primarily, you know, in these entertainment fora or in social media and new media, but especially with more critical research, I don’t think perhaps entertaining isn’t what I would want to aim for, but compelling or engaging, definitely, yes, and that is certainly more than we get with a lot of this kind of traditional academic production, which is neither of those things.

Will Brehm  11:20
So, I must admit that phrase comes from an organization called Opening Knowledge across Research & Entertainment (OKRE), which is an organization that’s situated within the Wellcome Foundation -I think that’s what they’re called- in London. I met the director once. I was sort of involved with them when I lived in London. They had this notion of research, entertainment and art, and I loved it. I loved it so much. And I think OKRE, as they’re called, was heavily influenced by entertainment. They would have all sorts of entertainment. The whole industry would be there, from gaming, to television, to movies, and it was heavily focused on entertainment, and then sort of bringing in a little bit of like market research. And one of the things that I’ve always wondered was, can you keep that same idea of research, entertainment and art, and sort of more emphasize the research and the art while still holding on a little bit of the entertainment and that’s sort of where I was coming from. Because I think, like you, I’m a bit skeptical about entertainment, but I also think of things like Carl Sagan’s The Cosmos, or David Attenborough -all of his documentaries about nature, and you have to admit that they are entertaining, you know? And so, there’s something really valuable of not getting rid of entertaining. But I can understand there’s a tension there as well from being sort of a critical researcher.

Peter Browning  12:36
Yeah. But I think the point you make is a good one, that there’s ways of packaging entertainment, right? So, entertainment isn’t always facile. It isn’t always a throwaway. It can be quite serious and entertaining. So, perhaps, it’s there as well. There’s a bit more exploration to do in terms of what can entertainment be in terms of research output.

Will Brehm  12:55
Yeah. I think so. I think to me, it’s a really productive sort of space to work in and sort of hold true to my true belief in knowledge production through research. And then sort of tack on the other bits to say, Okay, how do I make sure I’m having this sort of conversation and production of knowledge that isn’t just siloed in an academic space, right? And that’s what I always worry about. And I think, in a way, Peter, your episode sort of shows the possibilities of what can be done and also why it’s valuable. And there’s this journalistic phrase, “show me, don’t tell me”. And I think you sort of capture that so well. You show us the power of the soundosphere, as you say, rather than just sort of saying that there’s power in it.

Peter Browning  13:37
Yeah. Well, I think you know, that’s why I return to this idea of praxis. I guess that you know, one thing is talking about it, but the other thing is doing it and experimenting and seeing the possibilities and limitations for oneself. But also, then, as a, you know, community, when I look across the other Flux fellows as well, you know, if you take the four of us together, you can really see some of the contours of what I would call the soundosphere in a slightly tongue in cheek way.

Will Brehm  14:03
And I think, you know, you used the word earlier about experimenting. I feel like your episode is like all these little experiments that you’ve woven together. And perhaps the most experimental is really that triptych where you have, like a computer-generated text being read out, and then you have you reading out the same text, but much more motive, plus some sound effects that are woven together to sort of bring that story to life, and then finally, just the sound. And its sort of like deconstructing the written word and narrative and sort of moving away and extracting as much as you can. Can you talk me through that, like, what were you trying to do with that triptych?

Peter Browning  14:44
Yeah. So, I think you’ve touched on something there with the deconstruction. So, for me, I kind of see the middle piece as the bringing together. So, I think that’s perhaps an easier place to be, in the sense that the first part of the triptych, which is just the robotic text is to represent kind of a written textual production, or like you know, those boring conference presentations that you might be in which are almost robotic in presentation. And then the other end of the triptych, which is just the sounds, is perhaps the other limit, the counter position. But that could be a bit too untethered to be understandable. So, I think the middle ground is the middle triptych, and that’s something that I think we could all do in the here and now, is this multimedia representation of this story or this kind of reality. It also has resonances with -there’s an artist called Joseph Kosuth who has this art piece called ‘One and Three Chairs’, which is something that Joh drew my attention to -that this art piece, is a chair, it’s a picture of a chair, and it’s the dictionary definition of a chair. So, it’s three representations of the same thing, but each representation has its own effect and effect on us. So, I think I was just trying to explore, you know, what are the differences in representation between these different forms, whilst also showing that, you know, this is something, but we don’t need to be in this first robotic, textual place. I think it’s an easy step to take to be in the second part of the triptych. But why not let’s go the whole way and be in the third place.

Will Brehm  16:26
I love it. And I love that art piece too. I think that’s in Paris somewhere. But, you know, it really gets into the what is a chair? It’s an ontological sort of question that you sort of contemplate as you’re looking at this piece of art. And yet, I had a similar contemplation about, you know, representation of that story through sound and in these three different ways that you portray. Yeah, I love it. It’s really, really good. You know, sort of sticking along with sound and the soundosphere that you experimented with, and I guess, also bringing back theater into this conversation, you also use some of the audio of this English actor and playwright and sort of theater and opera director named Simon McBurney from, I think it’s his company called Complicité, and he has this phrase that has really stuck with me since listening to your episode where he talks about, you know, questioning, is it possible to listen to the future? Sort of like we often say, like, let’s listen to the past so we don’t repeat those mistakes or that we can learn from the past so, let’s listen to the past. But he sort of flips it and says, can we actually listen to the future? And what would that even mean? And so, what do you think that means? Because you put it in your episode, I found it deeply profound, but I would love to sort of learn from you with how you were thinking about it.

Peter Browning  17:45
Yeah. I mean, just to say how happy I was to have Complicité on board with the episode. Because when I say, you know, I’m into theater, for me, the pinnacle of that is Complicité because ever since I first saw them, I think there’s a way that they engage with kind of existential topics which really appeals to me, and they are future looking, and they don’t dumb down in a way, I think. And especially then with The Encounter, which is the piece that Simon McBurney is talking about in that montage. You know, that was a real moment for me when I encountered that piece, because it brings together these questions about storytelling, and narrative, relationality between us as humans as well as the non-human, and all of that mediated through sound. And it was also, I watched it on a national theater live during lockdown. You know, it was kind of one of those existential moments anyway, so it kind of heightened the experience, I think. But yeah, so it’s kind of been, you know, they have influenced my thinking in a number of ways, I think. And then, thinking about specifically listening to the future; so, what I take from that is, you know, I think it’s not necessarily in a transcendental way that maybe Simon McBurney and Complicité were playing with based on this story of encounter between a tribesman and a National Geographic photographer, and they kind of have this transcendental encounter beyond language. But I do think there’s a way that we can kind of pre-figure the future. So, we can teach ourselves in the here and now to listen to the future. So, it’s kind of a future in the present. So, it might be that, you know, what we were trying to listen to now doesn’t necessarily make all of the sense in the world, but in a future timeline, it will make sense. So, it’s also, you know, playing with the idea of the vanguard and the importance there, in intellectually, of the forward motion and the future in the present. So, for me, I think listening to the future in the context of Flux is about, you know, learning to orient ourselves to sonorate texts in a more open way, and just kind of allowing ourselves to listen in a different mode, perhaps than in the here and now -if that doesn’t sound too esoteric.

Will Brehm  20:00
No, no, I think I get it. I like this notion of the vanguard and sort of pushing the boundaries, seeing the future in the present. And we might not recognize that it’s the future right now, but once we get to that future and we look back, we might say, Oh, look, you know, that piece really sort of was at the forefront of how we might think about a sonic text and analyzing it and thinking about knowledge production differently. And I guess this sort of brings up in my mind this larger critique that you’re making about kind of the limitations of knowledge production as they currently exist in the academy. In some ways, I’ve been telling people that your episode is sort of like this manifesto or treatise of the soundosphere of what’s possible when it comes to using non written texts in the academic space. So, you know, maybe to help us hear the future, can you tell us a little bit about some of the limitations of the academy as you see it, that you were sort of making a comment on in your episode?

Peter Browning  20:58
Yeah. That’s a really good question, because I think a lot of my musings or my ideas do come from, you know, a sense of, Well, where are the limits? And I think I’ve been very lucky, actually, that I’ve been surrounded by individuals who’ve really let me experiment with that and to kind of push myself and my thinking and my ways of producing knowledge. But what we always come up against is the institution, and I think on a collective level, I think there is, like a recognition, as you say, that you know we can produce knowledge in different ways that there’s certain effective and kind of the yes, and or the quantum, that kind of resonance of the real world that we can’t represent in a written text as effectively as we can through other media. But the institution doesn’t take that into account. Of course, an institution is made of people, but an institutional timeline is very slow. So, I think we’re a good 50 years off that, honestly, without exaggeration, being, you know, something that you can approach -at least in the disciplines of sociolinguistics, where I find myself. I know there are other arts-based practice disciplines where that is more acceptable, basically, architecture as well, which have this practical praxis element. So, maybe it’s also about, you know, reimagining our knowledge production, or reclaiming our knowledge production as a praxis of knowledge production, and then thinking about the dissemination as the second part of that. So, one thing is this praxis of knowledge production, and that’s separated somehow from then, how do we tell that story? Because that maybe will free us up a bit from those entrenched ways of doing that.

Will Brehm  22:43
I like how you separate it out between, sort of the individual and the institution. You’re right. In every institution, you can find these spaces filled with people that are doing sort of experimental arts-based sort of pushing the boundaries, you know, being part of the vanguard and not being limited by what the institution deems is appropriate. You know, it’s valuable to recognize, I think, particularly for younger scholars that might be listening to this, to recognize that you can find those spaces wherever you end up. You use the word lucky. I have a feeling it wasn’t just luck, Peter, that sort of made that possible. I bet you sought out people accordingly. I mean, you know, can you tell us a little bit about your own journey through this space? Because maybe I should -as a backstory, when you applied for the Flux fellowship, like, I don’t know, almost two years ago, or whenever it was, one of the things that the producers and I, when we were looking through your application materials, we found your SoundCloud sort of stream, and you were experimenting in the academic knowledge production space with sound long before you came to Flux, right? This was something that you were really doing, and it really was inspiring for us to sort of listen to and say, wow, there’s a lot of potential here. So, you know, you do have this long background, I think, in working in these spaces, and I would imagine that you had a lot of agency in making those spaces, I would imagine.

Peter Browning  24:06
So, you’re right. So, this experiment, especially with the idea of montage and multi-vocality, and you know that comes through in the episode. There are the various moments where I have those because I think that, for me, is a very clear and present way in which bringing together different voices really reflects a reality that we live in the everyday, and that’s something that I really struggled to present textually in a written text. So, I had experimented with those, and a lot of this had come off the bat of having been doing field work in Colombia for nine months as part of my PhD, but wanting to participate still in workshops and seminars in the UK. I was in the mountains, my internet connection was not the greatest, so I pre-recorded. So, my first pre-record was a little bit like the robotic tech speech -was just reading off a script. But then the next time, I thought, well, you know, I’ve got these interviews. Why don’t I just put in the voices of the other people, kind of direct quoting. And then from there, I kind of kept pushing and kept stepping a little bit further. And you’re right, I was allowed to do that and encouraged to do that by the people that I had around me, because, you know, they kind of think they saw something in that as well. I think where the limit is in terms of, you know, so that was within my PhD research, where the limit was for that is different, where the limit is for Flux. Where the limit was for that was in my final thesis, I really wanted to include some of these sonoric explanations. Suggested that I included a CD as an appendix. In the end, I ended, I included QR codes with each chapter which linked to soundscapes or interviews or other multimedia. But I don’t really know if my examiners ever looked at those, because they were still kind of appended in a way. They were kind of parenthetical, whereas with Flux, what I love is that the whole world is sonoric. So, there’s no escape. You have to be in it.

Will Brehm  26:04
I mean, I do want to shout out to one person that I think was key on your journey, who happened to also be part of my journey -Miguel. And he was your PhD supervisor, but he was also my PhD co-supervisor in Hong Kong, and you hear his voice. So, can you tell us a little bit about how Miguel was part of this journey for you?

Peter Browning  26:25
Yeah. So, well, I think in every step of the way, and every sense of the word, and I think to summarize, it would be through generosity. So, a generosity of spirit, a generosity of supervision, not imposing on me. But also, you know, we discussed very early on, when it was clear that I was maybe being experimental, that he would let me go with it and let me run with it, and then just tell me where that I needed to rein it in. So, I think that, you know, it’s a very generous -we’re not imposing himself or his agenda, kind of trusting in me, to let me go and find this exploration, and also being that critical friend and really reminding me and reminding us -and that’s why I bring him into the episode- that, yes, it’s great to explore the soundosphere. Yes, it’s great to celebrate it, but we always have to have half an eye on realizing what’s going on more broadly. So, where is the potential co-optation of podcasting when it becomes fashionable or it becomes something that funders are included in their desired outputs, whose interests are we really serving? And it’s a mediation. It’s a mediation otherwise. But it’s not a mediation out in nowhere. It’s still in a specific political economic context which has the same problems that we can see with the academic publishing industry will re-emerge and re-articulate themselves in the podcasting industry, if they haven’t done already. So, you know, I think that has also been really valuable for me as well, to not completely lose tether of the material world that we produce knowledge for and in, and to see podcasting as a mechanism of sharing that beyond our usual circles, perhaps.

Will Brehm  28:17
So, coming to the end here, I’d love for you to just sort of reflect on what it was like being a Flux fellow on putting together this podcast. I mean, because there was almost no tether, right? You could do whatever you want with this episode. You weren’t trying to get a PhD and get examiners to review this and so you could work completely in that soundosphere. So, what was it like? You know, I think a lot of listeners probably have a hard time understanding the process that goes into producing 30 minutes of audio like you’ve done and like the other fellows have done. So, give us a sort of reflection on that.

Peter Browning  28:49
Well, I think the first thing to say is that it’s harder than it seems. You know, having produced, I don’t know, two-minute audio snippets before and experimented, 30 minutes is a long time, and it’s, you know, because you don’t just fill time with sound. It’s all intentional, there’s a storyline, there’s a narrative, there’s an argument there. So, it’s really kind of intellectually it’s been very stimulating in terms of thinking about, how is it that you construct an argument when you don’t have words on a page? And that’s a big challenge. It’s harder than it seems. I think we’ve been as fellows, we’re really lucky to be supported by a team, right? We’re not just floating around by ourselves. Joh and I working really closely with each other on the script. And that in itself -you know, being used to working with academics that don’t have this other side, who aren’t interested in the artistic in the sonoric, to then engaging with Joh and she says it in the montage at the end; there’s a difference between the academic mind and the artistic mind. And I think you know what she really has helped me to do, and I’m sure the other fellows, is to have one foot in each side of those minds, or to bring the both sides of that mind together and make sure that there is a coherence, there is a logic, there is a narrative. And I think, you know, also, working with other fellows has been really useful and productive as well, in terms of, you know, I think, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, I think we’re all interested in the same question. So, you know, we’ve met up. We’ve had discussions between ourselves. We’ve met up with the team, with you Will, with Brett as well. And I think those conversations and that ongoing dialog really has also been helpful and productive. So, all of that feeds into the 30 minutes. And I think, you know, what’s hard is that we all have a sense of, you know, we read a chapter, or we read a book, and we’re aware of the work that’s maybe gone into that, whereas when we listen, we don’t necessarily appreciate the hours and hours that go into a 10 second snippet to get the volume levels right of each of your 30 different soundtracks which are going at the same time, to make sure that nothing’s overlapping, to make sure that the sound quality is there as well. It’s not only about what you say, but it’s about how you’re saying it, and then the quality of that. So, I’ve learned so much through this process, it’s been a really great one.

Will Brehm  31:10
That’s really good to hear. I mean, you know, our intention has always been to create sort of academic spaces that aren’t constrained by the traditional institution of the university. And so, one of the things that I always sort of laugh about in some universities is like, how much time you’re allowed to do supervision for master students. You know, it’s like, over the course of the whole year, you get like, five hours, or, you know, whatever it is. And it’s like, Oh, my God, five hours of supervision is nothing, nothing. That’s five meetings, and this person is supposed to write, like a 25,000-word piece. It’s like, how are you going to get anywhere in five supervision meetings. So, our intention was always to flip that and sort of be this hands on, sort of, you know, really have close supervision, almost mentorship through the process, but also try and create that community. So, I’m really happy to hear that you sort of met up with fellows, you hear the fellows’ voices in your episode. So, it’s a really nice sort of homage to the whole process that we really were -we had this intention. And I don’t know if we get it right every year, or all the time, but that is what we’re working towards.

Peter Browning  32:15
No, we definitely feel it. I can’t remember if it’s -I don’t think is in the episode, it didn’t make the cut. But talking about the Flux family, and it does feel that way, there’s definitely a mentorship, and even from previous Flux fellows. We had Michael coming in, that’s the kind of the previous generation, the older, experienced ones speaking to us. And it does feel very different to those traditional academic structures. So, thank you and well done. It is doing what it’s meant to be doing.

Will Brehm  32:46
I guess, finally; what’s next for you? What are you up to now that the fellowship is over, and where should people be looking to find what you’re creating next?

Peter Browning  32:56
Well. So, I’m currently working on a postdoctoral project, which is with queer Colombian migrants in London. And I’m hoping, if I get the funding, that one of the outputs of that will be an exhibition. So, on the one hand, I’m going to get some portraits done of these individuals and then work with them to create kind of soundscapes based on our interviews, found sounds and kind of important moments for them. So, it’s going to be a multimedia exhibition.

Will Brehm  33:22
Well, Peter Browning, thank you so much for joining FreshEd. Thank you for being a fellow. I’ve learned so much from you in this process. And I hope everyone listens to your episode, because it really is a manifesto of the soundosphere. Thank

Peter Browning  33:35
Thank you so much, Will.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com