Aisles of Mimetica

Tracing the Role of Acoustic Mimicry Across Species and Systems

Amias Hanley 05.12.2025Article, Issue 02

This text is adapted from the companion essay to Aisles of Mimetica (2024), a sound installation exploring acoustic mimicry. The following sections trace mimetic relations across ecological and technological contexts, attending to adaptive and contested ultrasonic exchanges between moths and bats. For a description of the installation itself, please refer to the coda.

1 Ancient Mimics: Fossils, flowers, and turtle tears

An encounter with a moth is an encounter with deep time. First appearing in the fossil record over 300 million years ago, moths have witnessed falling seas, the folding of mountains, and the lithification of corals. Across eons, as the earth was reshaped by faulting and fire, stardust and snow, moths continued to evolve alongside nocturnal ecologies, pollinating pale blooms by moonlight and diversifying into more than 160,000 described species.^{11Akito Y. Kawahara, David Plotkin, Marianne Espeland, and others, “Phylogenomics Reveals the Evolutionary Timing and Pattern of Butterflies and Moths,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 45 (2019): 22657–63, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907847116.}

In continuance with these extended timescales, moths transformed through recurring cycles of metamorphosis—some emerging with silk-spinning glands, others with a proboscis for drinking the tears of turtles, while a significant majority evolved tympanal hearing organs.^{22Matthew A. Collin, Kazuei Mita, František Sehnal, and Cheryl Y. Hayashi, “Molecular Evolution of Lepidopteran Silk Proteins: Insights from the Ghost Moth, Hepialus californicus,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 70, no. 5 (2010): 519–29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-010-9349-8. Leandro João Carneiro de Lima Moraes, “Please, More Tears: A Case of a Moth Feeding on Antbird Tears in Central Amazonia,” Ecology 100, no. 2 (2019): e02518, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2518} These auditory receptors, found in the wings, abdomen, mouthparts, and thorax across different species, evolved independently and repeatedly over millions of years, an indicator of the evolutionary importance of listening in moths.^{33Niels Peder Kristensen, “Molecular Phylogenies, Morphological Homologies and the Evolution of Moth ‘Ears’,” Systematic Entomology 37, no. 2 (2012): 237–39, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2012.00619.x}

2 Extreme Listeners

Embedded in moths’ tympanal organs are one to four mechanoreceptor cells, adapted to detect exceptionally high-frequency vibrations in the ultrasonic range. The record belongs to the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella, which can perceive ultrasonic frequencies nearing 300 kHz. To put this into perspective, this is five times greater than domestic cats (64 kHz), twice the upper limit of dolphins (150 kHz), and one and a half times greater than echolocating bats (200 kHz). As researchers note, “such extreme auditory frequency sensitivity is unmatched in the animal kingdom.”^{44Hannah M. Moir, Joseph C. Jackson, and James F. C. Windmill, “Extremely High Frequency Sensitivity in a ‘Simple’ Ear,” Biology Letters 9, no. 4 (2013): 20130241, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0241.}

But unprecedented listening capabilities are only the beginning. A subset of moth species evolved organs that enable them to generate ultrasonic signals—sounds used not only for communication and courtship, but as a means of resistance through imitation, in what is known as acoustic mimicry.

3 The Mechanisms of Mimicry

Across biological systems, acoustic mimicry describes a species evolving to produce acoustic signals that imitate those of another, spanning vertebrates and invertebrates alike. Burrowing owls hiss like rattlesnakes, margays copy tamarin calls, and hoverflies replicate wasp wingbeats. Birds are particularly masterful mimics, able to replicate numerous species’ calls and environmental sounds. The Australian lyrebird, for instance, mimics not only an impressive range of bird calls, but regularly mimics anthropogenic sounds, from crying babies and camera shutters to car alarms and chainsaws.^{55M. P. Rowe, R. G. Coss, and D. H. Owings, “Rattlesnake Rattles and Burrowing Owl Hisses: A Case of Acoustic Batesian Mimicry,” Ethology 72, no. 1 (1986): 53–71; Christine Dell’Amore, “Jungle Cat Mimics Monkey to Lure Prey—A First,” National Geographic, 12 July 2010; Thomas L. Crisologo et al., “Selective Alarm Call Mimicry in the Sexual Display of the Male Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae),” Evolutionary Ecology 37, no. 2 (2023): 245–66; J. G. Chadwick and Kevin J. McGraw, “Mimicry of Hymenopteran Wingbeat Frequencies by Syrphidae (Diptera),” Biology Letters 7, no. 5 (2011): 754–57, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0320.}

Models, Mimics, and Signal-Receivers

Acoustic mimicry hinges on a triadic system between mimics, models, and signal-receivers. For moths and bats, and most mimetic systems, it works like this: the model is the source of imitation. This role belongs to tiger moths (family Erebidae), which are toxic and unpalatable. To warn bats of their chemical defenses, these moths broadcast ultrasonic clicks—a strategy known as acoustic aposematism. Like the bright colors of toxic animals, these are honest signals that communicate that pursuit would be unprofitable. But not all tiger moths are chemically protected—this is where acoustic mimicry comes into play.

Palatable moths solve this problem through imitation. The mimic copies the warning signals of toxic species, deceiving bats into avoidance. This is Batesian mimicry: a harmless species evolves to resemble a harmful one, gaining protection because predators have learnt to associate the model’s traits with danger. The model itself receives no benefit—its signal may be diluted by mimics, which distinguishes Batesian from Müllerian mimicry.^{66Henry Walter Bates first described what is now called Batesian mimicry in 1862 during his studies of Amazonian butterflies; Fritz Müller later expanded this framework in 1878 to show how multiple unpalatable species converge on shared warning signals. See John van Wyhe, “A Delicate Adjustment: Wallace and Bates on the Amazon and ‘The Problem of the Origin of Species’,” Journal of the History of Biology 47, no. 4 (2014): 627–59.}

In Müllerian mimicry, multiple unpalatable moths converge on similar warning signals, mimicking the click rate, frequency, duration, and pattern of one another’s ultrasonic broadcasts. The more acoustically alike their signals become, the more convincing the warning. Each mimic benefits from the others, collectively reinforcing bats’ learned aversion—a form of evolutionary solidarity.

The signal-receiver is the third node of the triad. Through repeated encounters, bats associate certain moth signals with the costs or benefits of pursuit. This learned avoidance is what both Batesian and Müllerian mimics exploit. Without a receiver capable of learning and distinguishing signals, the mimetic chain collapses.

Notably, a mimic need not replicate the model perfectly—it need only approximate the receiver’s perception of it. Imperfect mimicry, as it is known, is effective because ultimately the signal-receiver’s interpretation, rather than mimetic perfection, determines the mimic's success.^{77R. Matthews and T. J. Matthews, “Military Mimicry: The Art of Concealment, Deception, and Imitation,” Defense & Security Analysis 0, no. 0 (2024): 1–15.}

4 Mimetic Machines

Acoustic mimicry is widespread in human behaviors and cultures, extending through and generated by the machines we use to interpret, silence, and produce audio signals. Here, it operates through symbolic, mechanical, and computational forms, where models, mimics, and receivers may be human, animal, or algorithmic.

A deep-time analogue can be found in western European cave systems, where early modern humans painted images in chambers that aligned with acoustic “hot spots.” Archaeoacoustic studies suggest that these sites—ninety percent depicting hoofed animals—show a flow of information from sound to image. If, as seems plausible, these acoustic signals involved mimicking hoofbeats through voice, percussion, or resonance, then such interspecies acoustic mimicry formed part of a broader cultural process of meaning-making that contributed to the development of externalized symbolic thought and the emergence of language.^{88Iegor Reznikoff and Michel Dauvois, “Cross-Modality Information Transfer: A Hypothesis about the Relationship among Prehistoric Cave Paintings, Symbolic Thinking, and the Emergence of Language,” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018): 115, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00115.} Just as the reverberant qualities of caves allowed humans to mimic other species, so too did human-built structures harness acoustic resonance for mimicry. For instance, at the Temple of Kukulcán, the returning echo of a clap mimics the call of the quetzal, a bird sacred to the Maya.^{99Declercq, Nico F., and Ian R. Bartoli. “A Theoretical Study of Special Acoustic Effects Caused by the Staircase of the El Castillo Pyramid at the Maya Ruins of Chichen-Itza in Mexico.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116, no. 6 (2004): 3328–35. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1764833.}

The motif of birdsong as mimetic material continues in the clockwork device known as the Singing Bird Automata (c. 1790), where a mechanical bird was engineered to reproduce birdsong, formalizing sonic mimicry as a mechanical craft.^{1010Arthur W. J. G. Ord-Hume, Clockwork Music: An Illustrated History of Mechanical Musical Instruments (New York: Dover Publications, 1995).}

In the era of early computing, the human voice became the model. At the 1939 World’s Fair, Bell Labs’ Voder marked a pivotal shift: using oscillators and band-pass filters to approximate the resonances of the human vocal tract, the machine greeted listeners with the phrase, “Good afternoon, radio audience,” demonstrating that human speech could be treated as a mimicable, machinic signal.^{1111Homer Dudley, R. R. Riesz, and S. A. Watkins, “The Voder,” Bell System Technical Journal 19, no. 2 (1940): 249–84.}

This benchmark persists in contemporary AI voice-generation. Automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and text-to-speech systems are judged by how convincingly they detect and reproduce human vocal patterns. Models trained on synthetic speech data introduce a further mimetic loop: these systems listen, adjust, and refine their outputs in response to individual users, functioning simultaneously as model, mimic, and receiver.^{1212Harsh Ahlawat, Naveen Aggarwal, and Deepti Gupta, “Automatic Speech Recognition: A Survey of Deep Learning Techniques and Approaches,” International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering 6 (2025): 201–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcce.2024.12.007.}

Similar logics of acoustic imitation continue to shape underwater biomimetics—from Cold War experiments that sought to hijack cetacean vocalizations as covert carriers for military messages to contemporary GAN-based models trained to generate synthetic dolphin whistles.^{1313Naval Ocean Systems Center, Project COMBO: Review and Recommendations, NOSC Technical Report 422 (San Diego: Naval Ocean Systems Center, 1980; declassified 2016), accessed 17 November 2025, https://www.governmentattic.org/22docs/NOSCrptProjCOMBO_1980.pdf; Joseph Trevithick, “The U.S. Navy Tried to Turn Whale Songs into Secret Code,” The War Zone, 13 March 2022; Yongcheol Kim, Seunghwan Seol, Hojun Lee, Geunho Park, and Jaehak Chung, “WhistleGAN for Biomimetic Underwater Acoustic Covert Communication,” Electronics 13, no. 5 (2024): 964, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13050964.} This confluence of military surveillance, underwater acoustics, and marine ecologies exemplifies how mimetic machines have an ecologizing effect, reconfiguring what can be copied, perceived, and expressed among humans, animals, and our shared environments.

5 Bats, Biosonar, and Sixty Million Years of Ultrasonic Relations

The upper limit of human hearing is approximately 20 kHz. Frequencies beyond this threshold are defined as ultrasonic. For millions of years, “a surprisingly diverse array of species—mice and moths, bats and beetles, corn and corals” have communicated through ultrasonic channels beyond our perception.^{1414Bakker, The Sounds of Life, 1–2.} In comparison, humans sense only a narrow band of the sonic worlds we share and inhabit. As evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis observed, “no matter how much our own species preoccupies us, life is a far wider system”.^{1515Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 111.}

Harvard physicist George Washington Pierce suspected this in the 1930s when he began building a crystal oscillator capable of down-converting ultrasonic signals into the audible range. Pierce’s apparatus would make perceptible what Italian polymath Lazzaro Spallanzani had intuited as early as 1793, when he systematically deprived bats of sight and hearing to find that their navigation depended on sound—though how bats achieved this eluded Spallanzani.^{1616Mary Bates, “Discovering Sonar in Bats,” American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2011, https://www.aaas.org/discovering-sonar-bats.}

Drawing on his World War I research in the U.S. Naval Experimental Station, where he advanced sonar circuitry, Pierce built the world’s first apparatus that could detect and transpose sounds above the upper limit of human hearing.^{1717Thomas G. Muir, “Underwater Acoustics: A Brief Historical Overview Through World War II,” Acoustics Today 17, no. 1 (2021): 30–38, https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Underwater-Acoustics-A-Brief-Historical-Overview-Through-World-War-II-Thomas-G.-Muir.pdf.} By 1939, Pierce’s device could detect insect stridulation, which caught the attention of a young researcher named Donald Griffin, who sought to answer Spallanzani’s century-old question. With Pierce’s agreement, Griffin brought his caged bats to the lab, and what they heard shocked them: bats broadcasting ultrasonic signals at 45–50 kHz.^{1818Kinga Wataha, “‘If Human Ears Were Tuned to Bat Frequencies’: Inaudible Sound and the Sciences of Bat Echolocation” (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2022), 2.}

Initially, the scientific community dismissed the findings, partly because sonar and radar were classified military secrets at the time. Still, Griffin and his collaborator Robert Galambos persisted, eventually revealing that bats used biosonar for navigation with a precision surpassing the most advanced human sonar technology of the day.^{1919Bakker, The Sounds of Life, 119–37.} Significantly, bats were not alone in their sophisticated use of biosonar; by the time Pierce’s ultrasonic detector was built, bats and moths had already spent sixty million years in continuous ultrasonic exchange.^{2020Kawahara et al., “Phylogenomics Reveals the Evolutionary Timing and Pattern of Butterflies and Moths,” 22657.} Emerging from this ancient dialogue is one of the most striking adaptations: ultrasonic jamming.

6 Ultrasonic Jamming

Tiger moths are the only animals known to defend themselves by jamming another species’ biosonar—a form of sonic resistance unparalleled across more-than-human worlds. While most ultrasound-emitting moths use low-duty-cycle clicks for aposematic warning or mimicry, at least six lineages have independently evolved high-duty-cycle signals—densely packed ultrasonic clicks lasting several hundred milliseconds. This adaptation, known as ultrasonic jamming, disrupts bat biosonar, transforming moths into agents of acoustic resistance.^{2121Aaron J. Corcoran, Jesse R. Barber, Nikolay I. Hristov, and others, “How Do Tiger Moths Jam Bat Sonar?” Journal of Experimental Biology 214, no. 14 (2011): 2416–25, https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.054783.}

Three hypotheses explain the mechanics. The phantom echo hypothesis suggests clicks mimic echoes, creating phantom objects to confuse bats. The ranging interference hypothesis proposes that clicks overlap with or precede echoes, disrupting distance perception. The masking hypothesis argues that clicks overwhelm echoes, rendering moths acoustically invisible. Research supports the idea of ranging interference: by precisely timing their clicks, moths disrupt bats’ ability to coordinate attacks.^{2222Corcoran et al., “How Do Tiger Moths Jam Bat Sonar?,” 2419.} While mimicry deceives, jamming interferes. Yet jamming is not an isolated strategy—it remains deeply entangled with mimicry and aposematism.

In 2022, a global survey using machine-learning classification revealed that roughly one-fifth of large-bodied moths produce bat-responsive ultrasound, clustering into five distinct acoustic mimicry rings. Within these rings, palatable and unpalatable species converge on similar warning signatures, forming clusters of what Barber et al. term Müllerian ensembles and supporting their prediction that “jamming and aposematism are not mutually exclusive,” as well as their observation that “ultrasonically signaling moths appear to be connected by some of the most widespread and biodiverse mimicry complexes known to date.”^{2323Jesse R. Barber et al., “Anti-Bat Ultrasound Production in Moths Is Globally and Phylogenetically Widespread,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 25 (2022): 5–6, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117485119.} These findings transform our understanding of moth auditory evolution from isolated defensive traits into a dynamic, relational process. Seen within the broader frame, moths and bats co-constitute one another through ongoing sonic relations. Yet these interspecies behaviors have been widely described through a different lens: as an evolutionary arms race.

7 The Red Queen Hypothesis: Moths and the Metaphors of Warfare

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, the Red Queen embodies a world in perpetual motion. As she explains to Alice, “it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place”.^{2424Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (London: Macmillan, 1871), Project Gutenberg, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm (accessed 17 November 2025).} In 1973, Leigh Van Valen invoked this passage to describe a paradox in fossil records: extinction risk remains constant regardless of a species’ age. His Red Queen hypothesis explained this as continual coadaptation—species evolve not in isolation or toward any stable endpoint but in response to the changing adaptations of others.^{2525Leigh Van Valen, “A New Evolutionary Law,” Evolutionary Theory 1 (1973): 1–30.}

Building on Van Valen’s ideas, Richard Dawkins extended the metaphor, likening interspecies adaptations to competing militaries developing weapons and countermeasures, shifting the Red Queen into an explicitly combative register.^{2626Richard Dawkins and John R. Krebs, “Arms Races Between and Within Species,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 205, no. 1161 (1979): 489–511.} Moth–bat sonic interactions have become a paradigmatic case of militarized metaphor, often cited as “one of the best known examples of an evolutionary arms race”.^{2727Hannah M. Moir, Joseph C. Jackson, and James F. C. Windmill, “Extremely High Frequency Sensitivity in a ‘Simple’ Ear,” Biology Letters 9, no. 4 (2013): 20130241, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0241.} This combative and competitive framing is not a neutral metaphorical device—it reflects and reinforces anthropocentric narratives rooted in state-based violence and the military-industrial complex. The militarization of the metaphor shapes not only how evolutionary dynamics are interpreted but also how ecologies and their inhabitants are perceived. In doing so, these framings operate as extensions of colonial geopolitical logics within accounts of more-than-human life.

This arms race metaphor has not gone unchallenged. Evolutionary biologists have argued for the “rejection of the arms race analogy as a general means of thinking about predator–prey coevolution.”^{2828Peter A. Abrams, “Adaptive Responses of Predators to Prey and Prey to Predators: The Failure of the Arms-Race Analogy,” Evolution 40, no. 6 (1986): 1241.} Likewise, anthropologists observe that “the metaphor itself has flown far beyond Van Valen’s more nuanced thoughts on the subject,” emphasizing that “life is manifestly much more about cooperation, at all levels and through a variety of ubiquitous mechanisms, than it is about competition.”^{2929Karen M. Weiss, A. V. Buchanan, and B. W. Lambert, “The Red Queen and Her King: Cooperation at All Levels of Life,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 146, no. S53 (2011): 3.}

8 Fossil Findings

Scientific accounts routinely claim that “in response to the heavy predation pressure of echolocating bats, many moths have evolved simple ears”, attributing the origin of lepidopteran hearing to “acoustic predation by echolocating bats”.^{3030Corcoran, Barber, and Hristov, “How Do Tiger Moths Jam Bat Sonar?”} Yet a 2019 study overturns this view, demonstrating that “multiple lineages of moths independently evolved hearing organs well before the origin of bats, rejecting the hypothesis that lepidopteran hearing organs arose in response to these predators”.^{3131Kawahara et al., “Phylogenomics Reveals the Evolutionary Timing and Pattern of Butterflies and Moths,” 22657.} Using a dataset of 2,098 protein-coding genes from 186 species—the largest ever assembled for Lepidoptera—the authors performed fossil-calibrated analyses to generate dated phylogenetic trees, visual maps of evolutionary relations that reveal the timing and multiple independent origins of moth hearing.

Their findings indicate that moths’ hearing organs first evolved for general auditory surveillance of the environment—detecting broadband sounds produced by animal movement—and, in some lineages, for intraspecific communication such as courtship signals. Ultrasonic hearing arose at least nine times independently, several origins dating to tens of millions of years before echolocating bats. In other words, when echolocating bats emerged, they entered a sonic world in which moths were already listening.

9 Alternative Listenings: Beyond the Arms Race

The temporal asymmetry revealed by this study unsettles the familiar architecture of the ‘arms race.’ It dislodges the fiction of a binary biosphere in which bats and moths are cast as reciprocal antagonists, evolving only through one another. Early moth listening instead emerges as composite and contingent, shaped by multispecies predators, conspecifics, and the granular synergies of sounding ecologies. This invites a shift away from linear, human-centric accounts of predator–prey escalation toward understandings of acoustic ecologies as dynamic, diverse, and entangled within broader networks of relation.

Karen Barad’s concept of intra-action offers a way of rethinking moth–bat relations beyond antagonistic causality.^{3232Karen Barad defines “intra-action” as “the mutual constitution of entangled agencies,” contrasting it with interaction, which presumes “separate individual agencies that precede their interaction.” Intra-action instead recognizes that “distinct agencies do not precede, but rather emerge through, their intra-action.”
Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 33.} Rather than treating organisms as pre-formed entities that precede their relations—as stable adversaries progressing each other in a binary brace—intra-action understands sonic capacities as materializing through the entanglements that constitute worlds. It attends to how sonic agencies—such as acoustic mimicry, echolocation, ultrasonic jamming—emerge in the ultrasonic channels where moths and bats meet. From this perspective, moth hearing is not a countermeasure forged in long-running sonic warfare but an expression of the re-configurations through which acoustic agencies continually emerge and transform.

10 Ultrasonic Jamming: Toward a Model of Resistance

Can ultrasonic jamming offer a model of resistance? Might the sonic responses of moths to echolocating bats be understood not as weapons forged in an arms race, but as adaptive acts of refusal? Here, resistance becomes an active intervention—an auditory tactic that alters the terms of engagement and makes space for survival. Breaking with warfare metaphors, ultrasonic jamming may be read less as an offensive acoustic weapon than as the disruption and interference of asymmetrical powers. Such a reframing invites us to listen out for other models and mimics, from which to imitate and imagine ways of sounding with the borrowed signals that resonate across species, technologies, and time.

Coda

At Southwark Park Galleries in 2024, audiences encountered Aisles of Mimetica, an installation composed of experimental sculptural forms, found objects, creative computing technologies, and a companion essay presented in dialogue with the work. Installed within the dimly lit, resonant interior of Dilston Grove, the installation invited visitors into a system of sonic relations.

During the exhibition, the installation recorded the ambient presence of visitors on an 80-second cycle. This recording was periodically disrupted by inaudible ultrasonic sound emitted from transducers embedded within the sculpture, which overloaded the microphone’s diaphragm and pushed it into a non-linear range, effectively “jamming” the recording system and mirroring the signal interference moths use to disrupt bat echolocation. Both the disrupted and undisrupted recordings were played back sequentially through a horn speaker, enabling audiences to perceive imitation, replication, and interference through direct sensory encounter.

By staging interference as both material process and mode of attention, Aisles of Mimetica produces mimetic relations that position acoustic mimicry as a relational and adaptive phenomenon evolving across time, technologies, and species. Here, ultrasonic jamming operates simultaneously as a mechanism and a methodology—inviting reflection on agency, adaptation, and surveillance. In doing so, the installation returns the essay’s culminating question: how might acts of interference, such as ultrasonic jamming, help us reinterpret the possibilities of disruptive resistance within the systems of power that shape our ecologies and technologies?

Aisles of Mimetica was shown as part of the group exhibition Echoes that Ripple Outwards (2024), UAL MA Sound Arts, curated by Hannah Kemp-Welch and Irene Revell.

Amias Hanley, Found object (concrete, glass, granite, metal, and other unknown materials); black steel mounting pole, orange paint.

Amias Hanley, Foreground: sound sculpture; background: found object.

Amias Hanley, Sound sculpture detail: ultrasonic transducers, moss, porcelain, flint, granite, acrylic paint, biobased thermoplastic, epoxy resin.

Amias Hanley, Sound sculpture with exhibition visitor reading the companion essay.

Amias Hanley (they/them) is a London-based artist exploring how auditory cultures, communications, and listening practices emerge through technologies and ecologies, often drawing on queer ecology and transgender studies.