Tags

    OnCoS Reflections

    Comments

    /groups/thechoreographyofsound/search/index.rss?tag=hotlist/groups/thechoreographyofsound/search/?tag=hotWhat’s HotHotListHot!?tag=hot3/groups/thechoreographyofsound/sidebar/HotListeckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-18 13:20:32+00:002012-06-18 13:20:32updated4eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-18 12:35:48+00:002012-06-18 12:35:48updated3Added tag - hoteckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-18 12:34:53+00:002012-06-18 12:34:53addTag2First createdeckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-18 12:32:59+00:002012-06-18 12:32:59created1weblog2012-06-18T13:20:32+00:00groups/thechoreographyofsound/weblog/aea9bFalseUpdate/groups/thechoreographyofsound/weblog/aea9b/Update.htmlGerhard Eckel4 updatesUpdate Dear partners, we are very happy to present to you the first results of our project. It took us some time to get to this point, but now we f...Falseeckel2012-06-18T13:20:32+00:00eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-16 10:03:04+00:002012-06-16 10:03:04updated6eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-16 10:02:44+00:002012-06-16 10:02:44updated5eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:34:12+00:002012-06-08 19:34:12updated4eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:31:53+00:002012-06-08 19:31:53updated3Added tag - hoteckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:31:51+00:002012-06-08 19:31:51addTag2First createdeckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:24:15+00:002012-06-08 19:24:15created1wiki2012-06-16T10:03:04+00:00groups/thechoreographyofsound/wiki/13b61FalseTowards a Plastic Sound Object/groups/thechoreographyofsound/wiki/13b61/Towards_a_Plastic_Sound_Object.htmlGerhard Eckel6 updatesTowards a Plastic Sound Object Ramón González-Arroyo To appear in: Raum: Konzepte in den Künsten, Kultur- und Naturwissenschaften, eds. Petra Ernst and Alexandra Strohmaier...Falseeckel2012-06-16T10:03:04+00:00eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 22:03:40+00:002012-06-08 22:03:40updated6eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:29:48+00:002012-06-08 19:29:48updated5Added tag - hoteckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:29:45+00:002012-06-08 19:29:45addTag4eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:29:37+00:002012-06-08 19:29:37updated3eckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:28:27+00:002012-06-08 19:28:27updated2First createdeckelGerhard Eckel2012-06-08 19:23:17+00:002012-06-08 19:23:17created1wiki2012-06-08T22:03:40+00:00groups/thechoreographyofsound/wiki/00e9fFalseA Framework for the Choreography of Sound/groups/thechoreographyofsound/wiki/00e9f/A_Framework_for_the_Choreography_of_Sound.htmlGerhard Eckel6 updatesA Framework for the Choreography of Sound Gerhard Eckel, Martin Rumori, David Pirrò, Ramón González-Arroyo Abstract A framework developed in the context of the artistic rese...Falseeckel2012-06-08T22:03:40+00:00hot/groups/thechoreographyofsound/search/index.rss?sort=modifiedDate&kind=all&sortDirection=reverse&excludePages=wiki/welcomelist/groups/thechoreographyofsound/search/?sort=modifiedDate&kind=all&sortDirection=reverse&excludePages=wiki/welcomeRecent ChangesRecentChangesListUpdates?sort=modifiedDate&kind=all&sortDirection=reverse&excludePages=wiki/welcome0/groups/thechoreographyofsound/sidebar/RecentChangesListmodifiedDateallRecent ChangesRecentChangesListUpdateswiki/welcomeNo recent changes.reverse5searchlist/groups/thechoreographyofsound/calendar/Upcoming EventsUpcomingEventsListEvents1Getting events…
    Transcription by Gerhard Eckel

    This is a 'synthetic transcription' of my iPhone recording of the OnCoS discussion held on Sept 8, 10:00-13:30 in the foyer of MUMUTH. As this is necessarily interpreted by me, i.e. 'deformed' by my views, I also transcribed the times in the recording (h:mm:ss) where the original statements can be found. Items in [square brackets] are thoughts I added, sometimes underlining how I understood a statement.

    GE (0.00:00): Opens session, excuses those who could not attend due to the Lufthansa strike:

    Georgina Born, Oxford University
    Simon Emmerson, De Montfort University, Leicester
    Michael Schwab, Royal College of Art, London

    Suggests to start with an introduction round (initials in bold used to identify statements below):

    Gerhard Eckel, IEM – GE
    Peter Plessas, IEM – PP
    Marlon Schuhmacher, CIRMMT – MS
    Olivier Warusfel, IRCAM – OW
    Markus Noisternig, IRCAM – MN
    Martin Rumori, IEM – MR
    Robert Höldrich, IEM – RH
    Germán Toro-Perez, ICST – GT
    Ramón González-Arroyo, IEM – RG
    Kees Tazelaar, Institute for Sonology – KT
    Hanns Holger Rutz, University Plymouth – HR
    Gerriet Sharma, Universität Würzburg – GS
    David Pirrò, IEM – DP
    Anna Maria Nowak, freelance choreographer / dancer – AN
    Alexander Gottfarb, freelance choreographer / dancer – AG
    Bill Brunson, KMH – BB
    Gerhard Nierhaus, IEM – GN
    Georgios Marentakis, IEM – GM
    Alois Sontacchi (joined later) – AS
    Bernd Brabec, KUG (joined later) – BeB

    Everybody expect PP (taking photo), RH and GS (who had left already at that point - 13:12)
    GE (0.12:00): explains that RG and GE have prepared topics to discuss, but do not want to impose any of them, rather see where the discussion develops / starts "naturally"

    RG (0.13:17): there are methodological questions, questions of artistic research, other aspects more related to the content of the project, the "ice needs to be broken"

    GE (0.14:10): a possible start would be to discuss the site-specificity of the project, how the results may be translated, and the related mixture of installation and concert formats

    RG (0.15:20): an alternative topic to start with: focus on the making of music as part of research, tension between producing music and doing research

    [short gap here, had to restart recording]

    GT (0.15:50): interested in the impact of artistic research on the artistic practice, does the change in attitutde when making music as research also change the making of music in general, in this case "composing as self-expressing" looses its meaning, composing becomes more like asking questions

    RG (0.17:24): cautions against the research effort to destroy the artistic practice, observing while making the art changes the making, looking at the object (the work, its making) too much may kill the object itself, which is where one has to be careful, else we will create monsters to be research

    GE (0.18:36): in CoS we do research through artistic practice, using artistic practice as a method to investigate artistic practice, resulting into a self-referential system, experience of how observation determines the observed, employ writing as a research device, to trace the process, allow to return to experiences made earlier, developed a way of writing which became generative of the artistic practice, practice changed fundamentally through doing the research, pleased with this transformation of the practice, no difference any longer between observed and observation, it became one thing

    HR (0.22:14): this is the only possible way to arrive at a valid outcome, if there is no interference of the research with the practice, you are not doing artistic research, artistic production is understood as a discourse in constant motion, artist researcher needs to be part of this motion, there is no object to be observed

    KT (0.23:26): in the short of history of electroacoustic music (last 60 years) there was always a close connection between research and artistic production, as production necessitated research, is this relation lost, now that our technological means are much more common?

    GE (0.23:26): is still as important, IEM is a place where this cross-fertilisation happens, take the icosahedron speaker as an example

    RH (0.24.45): points out that scientific research, engineering and digital signal processing always ended up in tools used by composers, in CoS, GE does not make the distinction any longer between artistic practice and research, his practice transformed, he became a different artist, research is happening inside the creative process, most compter music books are written by engineers, tools like the icosahedron speaker are developed and then used by artists, there are two different meanings of research [research for the arts an in the arts]

    RG (0.26.27): there was research at the beginning of electroacoustic music, it was needed and it was artistic research, which has continued since, different institutions cultivated different links between the different worlds of research

    OW (0.27.03): distinguishes between the creation process and how the findings of this process are mediated, is it only the artistic work or also the observations collected in the process, representing a corpus of questions, investigated in a systematic way

    AS (0.28.23): perceived a strong relation to acousmatic practice in the presentations yesterday, was asking himself, where in the process of attempting to be systematic one can find the tools applied in our perception and useful for artists to refer to

    RH (0.28.50): relates to OW's remark: on the one hand there are the case studies resulting from the research, takling artistic problems, and mediating the results and on the other had there is the writing, he relates this observation to the format of the OnCoS event, one possibility to mediate findings yesterday: listen to Among, listen to perfectly prepared presentation, listen to Among again, but this is not sustainable, as only accessibe to the people who participated in the event, same with presentation of RG's pieces, preparing our mind to listening is part of disseminating the findings, problem: is this a deliverable in the traditional practice of performing research projects?

    GE (0.30:46): sharing is key, need for communication creates a differnet mode of operation, a practice including attemps of capturing and understanding what one in doing in order to share it, special understanding emerged: research = (oriented towards) communication, communication is a performative act, more adequate ways of performance have to be found, new formats may completely dissolve our traditional notions of the art work and of research, artistic research is also challenging our notions of scientific research, and of art

    AN (0.33.52): in the performing arts, e.g. choreography, introducing research and reflection, focusing on the process is quite recent (since the 80ies), caused new formats to emerge, e.g. lecture performances

    AG (0.34.28): yesterday the performance started with the opening talk, GE's body was part of the performance, maybe not all tools of performance are yet in place

    GT (0.34:59): one aspect: which kinds of works emerge from research (e.g. case studies), refers to a Modellinszenierung (a "model mise-en-scène") he used in a theatre research project, these kinds of works embody a different attitude, concentrating on certain aspects to explore, the other aspect: how does the work relate to the public (in the sense of Öffentlichkeit), the world, how does research relate to the world, an not only institutions, results have to be made more transparent

    GE (0.36:40): this is a new responsibility of the (researching) artist

    BB (0.36:49): we have two things here: technology and the world of ideas, ideas can be tested in this environment, the work is about experiences being created, when this building was built, there were ideas about what to do with it, but it was not clear in detail, the project articulates the experience of using the technology of the Ligeti hall, including the measurements of the room impulse responses, which are something "hard", something that doesn't change, much of the work is based on established scientific facts, used to articulate artistic ideas, there is the possibility of emperical research, with the goal of replicating experiences

    GE (0.40:09): idea of testing is at the centre of the everyday work in the hall

    RG (0.40:33): we had to learn how to test, which was complex, tools needed to be built

    BB (0.40:55): experience of Among was that it didn't matter if one walked around or not, it was as if one was outside, in the woods, but also sitting still provoked a spatial experience, there was no need to move as the sounds were moving, so there were these two levels of movement

    RH (0.41:54): it was one of the goals of Among to be able to change the listening position and perceive more or less the same idea

    BB (0.42:14): corroborated that the idea is successful :-)

    GE (0.42:20): yes, BB is GE's ideal listener :-)

    KT (0.42:25): refers back to the idea to incorporate presentation and piece, certain parts of the Among presentation (condition of temporal dispersion) could have been part of the piece and would have been self-explanatory

    GE (0.43:26): we were always aware about the temporal dispersion in the hall, but one tends to forget it, I became only aware after I had composed Among how important this condition of dispersion is for the piece, this is why it is not exposed in the piece

    KT (0.44:18): can now become the basis for a new piece

    BB (0.44:22): similar to the famous sound in section 10 of Stockhausen's Kontakte, which explains, through the experience of the piece, what's at stake, what the means are how he uses, choses them

    HR (0.44:42): about how to write findings: pieces do not contain all aspects of the process, which are also intersting, also the options that have been discarded, how to achieve to communicate this, maybe a composition has to be rewritten in the view of the findings, incorporating the process in the piece

    GE (0.46:10): could integrate into a next piece what I have learned from presenting Among at OnCoS

    MN (0.46:26): refers to IRCAM's artistic research residency and what participants are expected to do there, it's not about composing a piece but about critical reflection in the building process, finding out how the composer is influenced by the technology, this is similar to scientific research, cycle of development and critical reflection (writing / re-writing)

    AS (0.48:38): 4 aspects important in (scientific) research: communication, being systematic, generalisation, and theory building - could also be important in artistic research

    RH (0.49:12): example for generalisation: design patterns exposed yesterday in the Among presentation, representing findings that can be communicated intersubjectively

    GE (0.49:38): the idea of expressing my findings in form of design patterns was triggered by preparing for OnCoS, the need to understand and talk about what I did, this choice is not neutral at all, it is particular to artistic research to be aware of the influence of the format of presentation, about artistic research in general: important to keep field of artistic research free of its own definition, at some level research activities are very much alike, but there is also a very high differentiation in the many research disciplines we know, hence the problem of trans/interdisciplinarity, example: how to articulate the body of knowledge about auditory space perception in psychoacoustics with the Gestalt perception approach as refered to in auditory scenen analysis? such an articulation would be important for CoS, artistic research as a driving force for transdisciplinarity

    GT (0.53:17): does the change in attitude in artistic practice (when doing research) also require a change in the attitude of the audience?

    RH (0.53:40): the audience in a research context are the peers, not the concert audience

    GT (0.54:32): but we are not only doing artistic research for experts but we want to open up also to a "normal" audience

    MN (0.54:50): conveying research results to a normal audience happens through the creation process

    RG (0.55:38): but the act of composing in this context is research

    RG (0.57:07): it is an important question under which conditions a piece composed as research is going to be presented and to which public, there are many tests one performs which are never presented to a wider public

    GE (0.58:42): composing a study (not a test) is always oriented towards an audience

    RH (0.59:41): there are tests, many of them, which are only presented within the project group, the case studies contain the results presented to the research community

    KT (1.00:17): do you have any audience in mind at all when you are in the midst of the research process, working in the hall or with the simulation? are there different modes of creation, addressing different audiences

    RG (1.01:00): what remains in all modes is that we are researching

    BB (1.01:17): mentions exhibition at Louvre about the last paintings of Leonardo, exhibition exposed the process, including all the "tests", which also a wider audience find interesting

    GM (1.03:48): besides all similarities between artistic and scientific research, where do they differ? how did what has been said about Among influence the second listening? which language should be used to communicate artistic research?

    GE (1.05:16): with respect to what has been said before about different audiences, the researcher is his/her first audience, what one does has to be convicing for oneself in the first place, the main laboratory instrument used to assess what one does is ones perception, ones experience, I decide, if something "works" or not, in scientific research the instruments "objectify" the experience

    AS (1.06:31): what is the difference to psychoacoustics?

    RH (1.06:34): artistic researcher is a "single instance measurement device", not the "statistical mean"

    MN (1.07:00): doesn't see a huge difference between an artist and a scientist doing research

    RG (1.08:35) there is this tension when doing research between the creative work and the research, which means doing more than one usually would, you are looking for something, this changes the economy of creation

    BB (1.09:36) the difference between artistic and scientific research is that science strives towards reproducability

    GM (1.10:01) an experiment in artistic research would not try to find commonalities in experience but utmost diversity among the persons experiencing the art work

    GM (1.10:46) the case study Among is built under the assumption that everybody in the hall will experience it from his or her individual perspective and therefore potentially very differently, so there is this diversity, at the same time I was looking for creating commonalities for all listeners

    MS (1.11:10) central question: what is the work supposed to communicate, pieces should not be didactic in the sense that they only show the tools

    GE (1.13:14) in Among there was nothing I was meaning to express before I created it, other than sharing a certain experience (of sound in space) with the audience

    AS (1.14:07) expression is awareness and attention form the audience, expression stems from structure in time or in space

    RH (1.14:07): this is a very extreme position

    PP (1.14:49): important question: how do we deal with things which didn't work out in the artistic research process, in science showing that something is not successful has the same value than the contrary

    HR (1.15:51): difficult to say weather something worked or not, interesting: which language should one use to communicate artistic research, probably a language which uses as many different ways of describing things as possible (i.e. different languages), looking at the same thing from different perspectives, maybe including fictional writing

    RH (1.18:23): experiment: one gets an explanation and then listens to something, then one gets a completely different explanation and listenes to the same thing again

    GE (1.18:50): JAR is en interesting model, CoS will be documented with the Research Catalogue on which JAR is based, in communicating artistic research presentation absolutely matters, the more ways you find to talk about what you did the better

    GM (1.20:22): the language used to descrbe things directs the attention, especially in hearing

    GE (1.20:54): as AG said, everything conditions our experience

    RH (1.21:16): but taking into account everything connected to everything may be a bit too much

    GM (1.21:28): mentions cocktail party effect as an extreme case of selective attention

    GE (1.21:23): Among is completely redundant and regular in its processes and I hope this would be experienced even without any direction of attention, the artist relies on this hope

    OW (1.22:22): would be interesting having a camera to record the differences of the choreography of the audience in the first and second performance, could show the differences of listening, does self motion (ambulatory concert) inhibit or at least alter our preception of temporal and spatial structures, yesterday in the first performance, everybody stopped moving when a clearly rhythmical pattern had emerged, you need to be stable in order to hear, this effect occured without having had any explanation, would be interesting to persue this research on the influence of movement on listening, Among poses some questions in this direction

    RG (1.24:51): has been discussed in the project, we assume different listening positions to be valid, you may not sit, which doesn't mean that you have to move, movement also creates noise, which distracts, if you have to listen to something very carefully, you stop

    OW (1.25:32): it takes time to represent space

    GE (1.25:37): when listening to RG's music, I often keep my head completely motionless, when I move it, I loose the object he is creating with his sounds

    GT (1.26:31): which conceps of sculptural presence of sound did the project arrive at? what are the condition in art which evoke stability? how does this relate to the particularity of music in it being so ephemeral

    RG (1.27:55): the consistency has to be evolving, to build up, to get presence, things have to change all the time, if something is static, it disappears, the internal movement of the sound is important, using an appoach called the sigma-micro-object, organising sonic micro-variations governed by hierarchical laws, allows to survey a volume, you have to hold things in space, therefore you need at least 3 points in space, better 6 points to create a volume, once you managed that the listener thinks that "there is something", then you can move it, the secret is the evolution in time, inside the sound

    RH (1.29:41): observations: most sound material is granular and textural, in general the volume is low, especially in RG's pieces, why? different speaker configurations are used, temporal and spatial dispersion plays a great role in the random setup, there are confrontational settings, a centre element like the icosahedron speaker and the speaker dome around it, also in L'isla des neumas, there is the centre triangle and surounding speakers, in Topoi there are two big structures, different topologies are used, why? what is the effect on the sculpturality? idea of representing an object by sampling it, like a tunnel with random outlets, why and how is the sculpturality, which can be clearly experienced, appearing?

    RG (1.32:43): the setup is fumdamental, its design and analysis, it is not used in just one way, different subsets/topologies are used for different purposes, where the sound holds, where it becomes present, is changing all the time

    RH (1.33:30): the necessity of constant change and temporal variation can be realized well with granular techniques

    RG (1.33:45): granular techniques offer a great freedom of control

    GT (1.34:26): the material has to be reduced, cannot have a strong profile, to allow the spatial aspects to appear

    GN (1.35:09): what is the difference between sculpuring a sound and a complex form of spatialisation, in perception and conception of the piece

    RH (1.36:04): this is similar to the difference between the IMAX cinema and the real world, in the IMAX cinema the world is represented through spatialisation and in the real world you have the objects themselves

    RG (1.36:45): is an answer in some sense

    GN (1.37:04): what is the difference in the perception, not in the tools

    GM (1.37:04): sculpturing is to fill a bounded volume with sound that has some coherence

    MS (1.37:47): how is coherence achieved? by combining perceptual cues so that they result in a singular object

    AS (1.37:59): the question is if there are physical or perceptual reasons for the perception of such an object

    GT (1.38:09): the effect may also be based on time preception, by perceiving one and the same thing from different perspectives, one after the other, [makes an object appear]

    GN (1.38:29): the question about sculpting vs. spatialisation could also relate to the difference between installation and composition, example: weiss/weisslich by Ablinger, what is it?

    GE (1.38:54): we are making a difference between sound spatialisation and choreography of sound because we want to think differently about sound in space [1:39:10 in the background: sirenes tested at every first saturday of the month at noon all over Austria] both approaches may restult into the same experience, but the ways this experience may have been created are different

    RG (1.39:53): this affects the way we compose [bells in the background, noon], mentions the example of a doube spatial canon in Topoi, something he would not think in terms of spatialisation

    KT (1.40:33): sound cannot be thought of without taking space into account, what sense does it make to define spatialisation as an approach which separates sound and space?

    GE (1.41:12): the distinction is made also for reasons of provokation, it is a fact that most spatialisation tools do not allow to relate the characteristics of the source with its spatial appearance

    RG (1.42:04): it is not only about space, it is links of the material and the timing and the space, it is about an object, the first goal is to give the object some consitency, and then you can move it around

    GT (1.42:37): due to the material and time structures used the experience of the pieces leads to a hearing situation where one is approaching an object from different perspectives and there is no discursive structure, mostly textural sounds are used which don't have an "Eigenzeit", what are the consequences for the musical form? there are situations which are changing, but one hears the similar things over a longer time, allowing to capture the materiaity of the sound, which is different from a discursive compositional approach

    GE (1.43:50): redundancy is needed to build sonic objects in space, which has a strong impact on how musical time and structure are thought, using the space in the way we do changes the musical language we use, the material we use, we are not defining a path along which we render a sound read from a sound file, we are building up objects from a multitude of (mostly granular) elements with a particular timing and distribution over a highly specific loudspeaker setup

    RG (1.45:35): we have not yet started to explore the compositional consequences, an example is the analysis of a setup, the different ways it can be used, this could also be analysed algorithmically, there are large numbers of ways of looking at speakers of a setup, to be able to create links that move, we are never working with points but with multitudes of things moving around

    OW (1.46:55): also with traditional spatialisation approaches the type of spaciality refered to here can be produced, an example are the pieces of MS, another aspect is the question of the corporality of the sound objects, where the behaviour of each element of this acousmonium is important, the consequence of this aspect is that it impacts on the way you reveal the room,
    in peripheral systems you try to cancel the acoustics of the room, in the other case, as here, you play with the room itself

    GT (1.48:48): the possibility to come close to the loudspeakers, which usually is not possible in a concert situation, allows very dofferent experiences

    GE (1.49:25): a detail in Among: the speakers one can get to very closely have a little bit of reverb added, so that they don't stick out so much, this also compensates for the shadowing effect of the loudspeaker when standing close in front of it, a certain kind of relationship to the other speakers needs to be maintained [even when listening closely to one speaker]

    MS (1.50:24): the idea of a point source moving along a path appears strange, interested in the spatiality of the sound source itself, would be interesting to create a controlled situation, considering the perceptual contraints (timbral and temporal aspects) which can make sonic objects emerge

    PP (1.51:45): is this one example of such a controlled situation [what does he refer to, CoS?]

    MS (1.51:53): from a certain listening position, how can one distinguish if a granuar texture is changing its shape, if it changes its color, or if it is actually moving

    AS (1.52:17): from a perceptual point of view you cannot differentiate which was the reason for the change

    GE (1.52:31): such a differntiation is only possible in the context of a piece, depending on what has happened already, you will be able to decide what is happening, it's not about the cues present at the moment, the musical context will tell you, I think RG's work (as opposed to what GT said before) uses gestures, works with the ambiguities of gestures, what they may hint at

    MS (1.53:23): maybe one is supposed to ask oneself what is going on

    GE (1.54:17): an artwork always produces a multiplicity of answers to such questions, this is a way of defining art, how something is read depends on the context one brings to it, composers aim at certain experiences, but what a particular person will experience if very open

    MS (1.55:16): when listening to Toiles en l'air, he was not aware of where the speakers were, when some pitched grains appeared, he heard a movement of sound

    RG (1.56:00): thinks it is the contrast between the different elements and their spatial cues which makes such a movement emerge

    GE (1.56:18): one finding of CoS, put informally: if everything you do in a musical situation behaves as if something was there, assuming that something is there, will eventually lead to the impression, that there is something there, auditory scene analysis could be useful to research this phenomenon

    RG (1.57:52): and pointers …

    PP (1.58:03): imagining that there is this object there influences the composing, which is why it works so well

    RG (1.58:47): we work so much with illusions, that we can loose ourselves while we are pushing perception, this is when we need the ears of others to know if this is something, we are inside there, everyone could describe what they experience with their own words, but this would not be useful, the other thing is important, that it rests [?]

    HR (1.59:30): we are talking about the sculptural aspect and not the choreographic one, important to consider that the choreographing involves the choreography of the audience, choreography of sound is maybe this dance between sound and the listener

    GE (2.01:26): the intended communication with the discipline of choreography did not happen yet in the project

    BB (2.01:45): there are two aspects of time, one is responsible for how you perceive the object, the other is the time it takes to move a body from one side of the stage to the other, with electronics we can make objects jump from one end of the stage to the other, which is impossible with dancers

    GE (2.04:59): yesterday AN remarked that dramaturgy may be another interesting term, an alternative to chorography

    AN (2.05:17): the way CoS uses choreography is a bit old-fashioned, today choreography takes into account the context, there are not only bodies which move in space but the question is what they represent, what is the social and political context of a work, it would be interesting to bring this wider notion of choreography to the project, including the context, how the case studies are presented, what light is used, everything becomes important then, who are we

    RH (2.06:44): introduces term scenography

    GE (2.07:27): talked to 30 to 40 people, dancers and choreographers, trying to interest them in the notions of space relevant for CoS, but didn't succeed (yet)

    HR (2.08:24): reports about a project where he ran into a similar problem, he used the same old-fashioned understanding of choreography and the dancers approached the installation piece much more from a dramaturgical perspective, dance seems to be more conneted to performance art than to installation and sculpture

    AN (2.09:03): to think choreographically about space one does not need bodies or objects, choreography is developing rapidly, would be interesting to confront this development with CoS

    AG (2.10:22): the starting point to discuss Among would be the human body in the installation, as there are no performers, this is more a social choreography, audience members performing their audience membership, seeing the relations between them, the light installation and the space becomes as much part of the choreography than the sound, focused on the expression on the people and their listening to see a choreography of people correspond to the choreography of sound, the static character of the light objects did not correspond to choreography that was happening

    AN (2.11:46): appropriating the field of choreography can open up new spaces, new formats

    AG (2.12:09): choreography has been fighting for the inclusion of social aspects

    GE (2.12:26): choreography today doesn't seem to be concerned with the spatial concepts we are dealing with in this project

    AN (2.12:45): space in this sense is only one part of choreography today

    GE (2.13:19): CoS came up with choreographic work without working with choreographers

    AN (2.13:30): refers to EGM project: haptic aspect of sound, presence of sound as a material object, came in through the interaction with the sound, would be intersting to look for possibilities of interaction with the audience, there was this sculptural aspect of sound, emerging in the interaction with it [-> RAL]

    GE (2.14:36): we wanted to bing this aspect of EGM to CoS, was maybe too optimistic, do do this in parallel with all the other developments planned in CoS – proposal to take a break, as it is 12h30

    GM (2.15:18): asking AG, could you imagine a dramaturgy for this event?

    AG (2.15:32): own performativeness of presenters, added to the overall dramturgy of us arriving here, including the dinner yesterday, and the meeting today, is part of the dramaturgy of the event

    AN (2.16:02): dramaturdy in dance is also the bigger frame of something, includes the questions if the results of artistic research are to be shared with a public and with which one, why do we want to share it and how, dramaturgy is a bigger frame than the composition, in choreography you do both, or did you ask for concrete ideas?

    GM (2.17:00): some imagination, what would you change?

    AN (2.17:10): working on the lighting, integrating the performativness of GE into Among, or the little speech by RG, work on how much information is given before

    AG (2.17:47): if choreography is about the objects in space, dramaturgy would be concerned with the bigger event

    AN (2.17:59): or the context of the CoS work in the bigger frame

    [break, continuing at 13h05, RH had to leave already]

    AN (2.18:27): proposes a short final round, leaving the possibility open to go on informally after this round, we are very happy with the way the discussion went so far

    RG (2.19:12): went much better than he was afraid of

    OW (2.19:37): wants to listen to RG's pieces again, event poses a question about virtuality, the importance of working with real loudspeakers, would it be interesting to have virtual loudspeakers, which can be oriented and moved, but without the visual cues, with the icosahedron loudspeaker, why did you chose discrtete loudspeakers and not the beamforming, which could produce stronger effects with reflections for instance

    RG (2.21:29): would have used both, discrete and beams, for some things would have been better, for others less, producing these textures, which have to keep there, at the speaker object, and which move around all the time, to create this depth would have been more difficult with beams, about the virtuality: its not about the visual aspect of the speakers (trying to hide the speaker all the time - big difference if one sees speaker or not), would use a virtual system, if it was convincing

    GE (2.23:54): RG refered to the Virtual MUMUTH and OW to a WFS system simulating loudspeakers and their radiation patterns

    RG (2.24:15): doesn't know (it)

    GE (2.24:20): in a virtual system you could move the loudspeakers

    PP (2.24:58): using virtual loudspeakers would probably restrict the space where the audience can be in the room

    MN (2.25:15): the questions was about an ideal world, would the visual aspect of the speaker object be of importance for RG

    RG (2.24:34): confirms that visual appearance is not important

    KT (2.25:42): space has forced composition into a certain direction, a certain material to be used, certain forms to be used, wouldn't be interesting to confront this approach with other approaches, using other material, to even enhance the contrast?

    RG (2.26:36): thinks he does in Topoi, mixing both possibilities, doesn't think we are forced to used a certain material in a certain way

    GE (2.27:00): have hinted at that, maybe too stronly, but there is a strong interaction between the type of material that can be used

    KT (2.27:19): obvious that for certain movements or spatial qualities, certain sound materials are better suited

    KT (2.27:38): question to GE: how did you analyse the random setups?

    GE (2.28:05): was not systematic, tested different setups with my space filling textures approach, criterion: should sound interesting from any position

    KT (2.28:36): what was the expectation from confronting yourself with these random setups?

    GE (2.28:41): Among is one of a pair of case studies, in the other one the sound would be on a "stage" one cannot walk up to, one would have to stay behind a line, wanted to compare these two situations, for the second one I handcrafted a setup and failed, wanted to create different layers of depth, like in the Baroque theatre stage, works differently than I expected, analysing and consciously conceiving speaker setups is a central aspect of the project, discussed a lot with RG, wanted to escape from this mode, wanted transcend horizon of imagination

    RG (2.30:33): there are 33 speakers, with 3 parameters each, you have to come up with 99 numbers

    HR (2.30:46): one could use a genetic strategy, defining criteria and evaluating setups

    GE (2.28:05): found it a significant step methodologically to use random setups because it allows to get away from the intended use of this system of moveable speakers

    GT (2.31:23): there will be a large number of possible arrangement that would work for Among

    GE (2.31:30): yes, and now I would be able to hand-craft one, one could also condition the random decisions (I used the full range of possibilities)

    RG (2.32:06): we have many setups, … [can't understand, as several people are speaking]

    MS (2.32:24): when creating setups, are you considering the setups visually or do you play the sounds?

    RG (2.32:33): it is the inner vision, it is not visual

    MS (2.32:40): how did you come up with the light configuration?

    GE (2.32:51): wanted to avoid verticality of the space, light should come from below, sound comes from above, didn't want to see light projectors above, because they are visual reference points

    MS (2.33:36): liked the lighting, compares it to a project at ZKM, where the audience was supposed to move and probably didn't because the light was wrong, it was too bright

    GT (2:34:18): to what extent are the pieces site-specific? [could they be transposed]

    GE (2:34:29): after I have done it here, yes, maybe

    GT (2:35:14): if we ignore practical concerns, I could imagine that the piece could also work somewhere else

    GE (2:35:31): as Among is a model-based composition, it is possible because the material would have to change, the timing, but the design patterns would be the same

    RG (2:36:02): the timing in a large hall like this is a fundamental thing

    GE (2:36:10): these dispersion effect are very well modelled in the Virtual MUMUTH, once one has understood how the piece works, one could transpose it, maybe site-specificity is less of an issue in the end

    RG (2:36:56): you have to modify hints, the piece like Day and Night has to be modified if played in the CUBE at IEM

    GE (2:37:12): we also wanted to tackle in the project the idea that a piece is represented as a model that can be adapted to a hall

    GN (2:37:37): why these concrete kitchen sound?

    GE (2:37:45): why not?

    GE (2:38:08): don't know why I revealed that it was kitchen sounds

    GE (2:38:28): they were not used in a concrete way

    PP (2:38:45): portability, site-specificity: how about the installations (L'isla de neumas, Catabolizer), which have been presented already in other spaces, how do the challenges met with these works compare to the CoS works?

    RG (2:39:28): wherever I have tried to set it up somewhere, I managed easily

    GE (2:39:47): Catabolizer it became a different piece and should have another title therefore (but the program was already printed), the original used the same design pattern, but 16 speakers, 12 processes involving 7 speakers each and here we have 31 speakers, 60 processes, involving 3 loudspeakers each, the room here is dry, speakers are projecting directly towards the audience, the orginal room was very reverberant and the speakers were projecting against the wall

    HR (2:41:28): suggest to refer to room-specific instead of site-specific

    AN (2:41:45): in choreography, the content of a site-specfic work is very much related to the place, not only the archtecture, but the wider frame

    GE (2:42:10): there are so many contemporary art practices that are much more aware of bigger social contexts than music

    AN (2:41:45): is it possible or necessary to put these compositions in a wider context

    GE (2:42:37): important question because the music we are dealing with occupies such a marginal space in our society

    GE (2:43:31): we are 30 minutes past schedule, thanks everybody for the nice meeting

    AS (2:44:11): thanks CoS project team for the presentation of intermediate results