Post 05: Reading & Response #3

Created by vocalist-composers Jaap Blonk and Joan La Barbara, Messa Di Voice is an exceptional piece of interactive performance that blurs the line between vision and sound. First premiering in 2003 at the Ars Electronica Festival in Linz, Austria, it has appeared at galleries and festivals across America and Europe. The overall theme of the work is the visualization of the human voice. The piece is performed by live actors “speaking” through phonetic sounds, which are analyzed by a computer and transformed into visual phenomena through real-time video and speech allithograms. For example, during the sequence “Ripple”, two performers create high-pitched chirping sounds reminiscent of wetland fauna. These “chirps” are projected as ripples, each sound having a unique shape and motion.

The underlying concept of Messa Di Voice comes from the theory of phonesthesia – the idea that sounds have an implicit visual shape or form. Furthermore, studies have shown that the “imagery” of any given sound may be based in our collective subconscious. For example, a 1927 study by psychologist Wolfgang Köhler asked subjects to match geometric figures with the sound they thought it most accurately represented. The results showed an almost unanimous answer.

By creating images out of phonetic speech, Messa Di Voice conveys the non-physical nature of voice by giving it a tangible form in space. It communicates its ideas in a form that can be understood regardless of language or reading ability. It is interactive in such a way that while its performers are communicating before the entire audience, it is up to the individual viewer to comprehend their message.

Post 04: Project #3 Proposal

My idea for this project is to create an audio-visualization program that generates tones based on user-activated “turtle paths”. By taking microphone input, the program creates a semi-random turtle path depending on the volume/length/pitch of the user’s voice. (For example, speaking quickly will create a turtle path that changes direction frequently, producing a rapidly fluctuating tone.) These “turtles” in turn will produce a musical tone defined by their movement. The overall effect will be to create a unique audio environment based on the user’s input. Using the “turtles” to create a constantly moving visual pattern will also be a goal for my project as well. To keep the program in constant motion, I may also have a “metronome” effect happen by default if there is no input at a given time.

For the project, I’ll be using Max5 to create the overall visual and aural result to be presented to the viewer. In addition, I will also use GarageBand for creating the “base” tones that the program will alter. The program will use the computer’s built-in microphone, though it’s possible I may be able to use a USB microphone for user input instead.

The first week of work will be concentrated on creating the basic programming and making sure the program runs in a simplified form. The next week will be concentrated on determining what to measure, how it translates to output, and tweaking it to get a desirable result.

The general concept I have for the project is similar to the Music-generation game Electroplankton for the Nintendo DS. Here's a video of the game, just to give you an idea.

Post 03: Reading and Response #2

In his article Trouble at the Interface, or the Identity Crisis of Interactive Art, author Erkki Huhtamo describes what he feels is the growing distinction between different forms of interactive art. He states that in the past, the phrase “interactive art” has been assosicated exclusively with user-driven computer-based works, while its modern definition has been broadened to include works fitting neither of these requirements. He specifically cites the 2004 Ars Electronica award winners as a sign of this division in the field.

In order to accomidate this growing division, Huhtamo proposes a more diverse terminology when dealing with the different kinds of “interactive” works. Works centered around a human-machine interface would thus be classified as “cybernetic art”. Likewise, works driven organically or spontaneously but without audience interaction (such as his example of a pair of fighter fish who can “pilot” their fishbowls by blocking light beams) would be classified as “meta-interactive”. Huhtamo also notes that what is classified as “interactive art” emerged well before the advent of the internet, and thus works involving an online aspect should be considered “net visions”.

Looking at the Ars Electronica winners from 2005 and onward, however, has lead me to disagree with Huhtamo’s idea of splitting interactive art into categories. While not all of them involve direct audience participation, (Such as Ieva Auzina and Esther Polak’s MILKproject, which uses GPS systems to create a real-time overview of the European milk industry) all are driven by human actions in some way. Paul DeMarinis’ The Messanger, for example, uses a computer to receive e-mails from around the world, which are then sent by telegraph to the work’s actual installment where they are spelled out through a series of “physical” devices, such as the resonance of a water-filled bowl, or a troupe of dancing skeletons. I feel that in these cases, human input, either consciously as an audience or subtly as with the MILKproject, has been the key element that drives the work, whether or not direct interaction with a computer is involved.

Post 02: Reading & Response 1

In the article “Delusions of Dialogue: Control and Choice in Interactive Art”, author Jim Campbell argues that computer-based art is inherently separate from tradition media because of the mechanical, mathematical output of the medium. He states that computers are designed as controllable devices, which conflicts with the “organic” nature of traditional art. While paintings, movies, and sound are developed without prediction of the audience’s reactions, interactive computer art must be designed to respond or keep track of all potential input, and are thus biased towards engineering a specific response from the audience. Campbell explains that these limitations can be overcome by thinking about the work from the view of the program itself, not the audience. By approaching the work from this perspective, the questions of what input can be measured and how to interpret them becomes the focal point of the work’s effect on the audience. Campbell also notes that unlike humans, computers are capable of making truly random decisions, free from the bias of the user.

This concept of spontaneity through calculation can be compared with the works of Los Angeles artist and professor Casey Reas. While Reas is most known for his “Process” series, which explores the nature of synthetic and natural developed systems, his 2007 work “Protean Image” plays heavily into Campbell’s arguments. The work involves a visual projection that allows audiences to modify using filled-out programming cards. This The result is a synthetic visualization driven by spontaneous organic input, while still capable of generating the visual patterns on it own.

While Campbell’s arguments help narrow the distinction between art and interface, I think there also needs to be a better clarification on what kind of input the user has, how much impact it has on the work itself, as well as how much sense of control or predictability they feel. An important aspect in avoiding predictability in interactive art is the abstraction between the user's input and how the art changes.

Post 01: Intro

Welcome to my SOU Interactive Art Blog. This is where I'll be posting class-related projects and assignments in the future.