Amergent Music: Behavior and Becoming in Technoetic & Media Arts Norbert F. Herber
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AMERGENT MUSIC: BEHAVIOR AND BECOMING IN TECHNOETIC & MEDIA ARTS NORBERT F. HERBER PhD 2010 !is copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author’s prior consent. AMERGENT MUSIC: BEHAVIOR AND BECOMING IN TECHNOETIC & MEDIA ARTS by NORBERT F. HERBER A thesis submitted to the University of Plymouth in partial fulfilment for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Advanced Inquiry in Integrative Arts School of Art and Media Faculty of Arts In collaboration with Rutland Port Authorities December 2010 Abstract Norbert Herber Amergent Music: behavior and becoming in technoetic & media arts Technoetic and media arts are environments of mediated interaction and emergence, where meaning is negotiated by individuals through a personal examination and experience—or becoming—within the mediated space. !is thesis examines these environments from a musical perspective and consid- ers how sound functions as an analog to this becoming. Five distinct, original musical works explore the possibilities as to how the emergent dynamics of mediated, interactive exchange can be leveraged towards the construction of musical sound. In the context of this research, becoming can be understood relative to Henri Bergson’s descrip- tion of the appearance of reality—something that is making or unmaking but is never made. Music conceived of a linear model is essentially fixed in time. It is unable to recognize or respond to the becoming of interactive exchange, which is marked by frequent and unpredictable transformation. !is research abandons linear musical approaches and looks to generative music as a way to reconcile the dynamics of mediated interaction with a musical listening experience. !e specifics of this relationship are conceptualized in the structaural coupling model, which borrows from Maturana & Varela’s “structural coupling.” !e person interacting and the generative musical system are compared to autopoietic unities, with each responding to mutual perturbations while maintaining independence and autonomy. Musical autonomy is sustained through generative tech- niques and organized within a psychogeographical framework. In the way that cities invite use and communicate boundaries, the individual sounds of a musical work create an aural context that is leg- ible to the listener, rendering the consequences or implications of any choice audible. !is arrangement of sound, as it relates to human presence in a technoetic environment, challenges many existing assumptions, including the idea “the sound changes.” Change can be viewed as a move- ment predicated by behavior. Amergent music is brought forth through kinds of change or sonic movement more robustly explored as a dimension of musical behavior. Listeners hear change, but it is the result of behavior that arises from within an autonomous musical system relative to the perturba- tions sensed within its environment. Amergence propagates through the effects of emergent dynamics coupled to the affective experience of continuous sonic transformation. 1 List of Contents List of Illustrations Figure 1.1: “Figure II - Riffology from ‘Song of the Grid’” by Peter Langston ............................... 26 Figure 1.2: A screenshot of Creatures............................................................................................. 27 Figure 1.3: !e Eden environment ................................................................................................. 28 Figure 1.4: !e Hanenbow species of Toshio Iwai’s Electroplankton ................................................ 29 Figure 1.5: !e creature editor in Spore.......................................................................................... 30 Figure 1.6: Bloom, Trope, & Air ..................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2.1: Sound art works of Max Eastley, Ray Lee, & Kanta Horio ........................................... 36 Figure 2.2: ii-V-I chord progression ............................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.3: Particle Swarm Optimization ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 2.4: A hypothetical tape phase system ................................................................................. 48 Figure 2.5: A Scaler() instrument made in Max/MSP .................................................................... 50 Figure 2.6: Generative system with four Shuffler() instruments ..................................................... 53 Figure 3.1: Structural Coupling ..................................................................................................... 58 Figure 3.2: Structaural Coupling ................................................................................................... 59 Figure 3.3: Structaural Coupling can support multiple unities ...................................................... 65 Figure 3.4: Perturb ......................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 3.5: Sound Garden 2007 ..................................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.6: Sound Garden 2009 ..................................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.7: Sound Garden 2009: installation, speakers, and sensors ................................................ 71 Figure 3.8: Complete systems diagram for Sound Garden .............................................................. 72 Figure 3.9: Sound Garden interface ................................................................................................ 73 Figure 4.1: Orbits example from Composition-Instrument Study I ................................................... 79 Figure 4.2: Maze example from Composition-Instrument Study I..................................................... 79 Figure 4.3: Dérive example from Composition-Instrument Study I .................................................. 79 Figure 4.4: Urban imageability example from Composition-Instrument Study I ............................... 80 Figure 4.5: Dérive Entre Mille Sons ................................................................................................ 82 Figure 4.6: Version 2 of the Information Architects Web Trend Map from 2007 ........................... 86 Figure 4.7: Blesser’s acoustic horizon & acoustic arena .................................................................. 87 Figure 4.8: Adjacent sonic zones can intersect with effects zones .................................................... 89 Figure 4.9: Chion’s simultaneous vertical relationship .................................................................... 91 Figure 4.10: Guy Debord’s dérive map of Paris as used in Composition-Instrument Study I ............. 92 Figure 4.11: A topographic scheme for sonic zone organization ..................................................... 95 Figure 4.12: Nine Crossroads & Duvet mazes by Andrea Gilbert ..................................................... 96 Figure 5.1: Profession space ......................................................................................................... 108 Figure 5.2: !ree "neural processes" by William James ................................................................ 110 Figure 6.1: Suikinkutsu construction and Jem Finer’s Score for a Hole in the Ground .................... 125 Figure 7.1: Structaural Coupling facilitates interaction within a third-order cybernetic system .... 139 List of Tables Table 2.1: Compositional organization for max.s.o ........................................................................ 43 Table 2.2: Flock bands, voices, and instruments ............................................................................ 44 Table 2.3: Musical organization for A(rt)Life 2.0 ........................................................................... 45 Table 3.1: Swarm data and sound generation for Perturb ............................................................... 66 Table 3.2: Sensor data and digital signal processing parameters for Sound Garden .......................... 70 Table 5.1: Londontown Class Intensities ....................................................................................... 112 Table 5.2: Londontown Profession Intensities ............................................................................... 112 2 Table 5.3: Londontown Skills Intensities ....................................................................................... 113 Table 5.4: Londontown Reputation Intensities ............................................................................. 113 Table 5.5: Londontown Utility Intensities ..................................................................................... 113 Table 5.6: Londontown Music Tests Organized by Profession & Class .......................................... 114 Table 7.1: First-Order Systems in Experimental, Ambient, Generative, and Amergent Music ...... 138 Table 7.2: Second-Order Systems in Experimental, Ambient, Generative, and Amergent Music .. 138 Front Matter DVD Instructions and ROM Content .........................................................................................