Capturing, Preserving, and Sharing the Sounds of Glassmaking

arts

Article Makers Marks: Capturing, Preserving, and Sharing the Sounds of Glassmaking

Lisa Naas 1,* and David Faleris 2

1 School of Design, Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH3 9DF, UK 2 Independent Composer, Glasgow G12 9SW, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Received: 30 November 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 30 January 2019

Abstract: The Makers Marks Collaborative, an international team of glass artists, visual designers, composers, and engineers, embarked on a project together from 2015–2016 to use the glassmaking studio as a staging ground for interdisciplinary, collaborative making. The team aimed to capture and preserve the sounds of traditional studio glassmaking, and then to share them outside the workshop domain through digital technologies and glass art objects. The goal was also to fulﬁll a public engagement grant from the Royal Academy of Engineering to highlight the engineering through the art and the engineers’ vision within the art making. The team recorded and isolated the unique sounds of the glassblowing process and its studio environment, and then used the resulting digital sound collection as the foundation for developing artistic outputs: a virtual instrument library, a glass object-instrument of performance, a series of glass objects translating selected virtual instruments, and a music composition. They questioned the nature and materiality of glass through dialogue between media and conversation among team members, while exploring the practice-based research question: “How can we embed our recorded sounds of the glassmaking process back into the glass itself?” This paper focuses on the collaborative, interdisciplinary making process of the team, the project outputs, and the metaphorical language that was a key process facilitation tool.

Keywords: glassmaking; glassblowing; sound design; engineering in art; interdisciplinary collaboration; research through design; metaphorical language; craft heritage; public engagement

1. Introduction The sounds of traditional making processes in artist and designer studios are not easily accessible by the general public, as they are unique to the material practices of the studios. Even those public studios and museums, which offer free making demonstrations, are few and scattered, and sometimes difficult to reach1. The sounds of the making are elusive as well, due to the specialized environments, processes, and tools. Often, they are heard only by the makers themselves, and even then, they can sometimes be masked by other studio equipment noise. One of the most exclusive and ancient making processes which produces unique sounds is that of glassblowing. As a material, glass has played host to a variety of functions and innovation over the centuries, but only recently, in the past few decades, has been used regularly as a studio medium within artistic practices (Klein 2001, p. 6). Aspects of the making process, however, have not significantly changed in centuries. For instance, glassblowers today are still inflating hot glass with their breath by using pipes and traditionally-made tools to work the material, just as they did centuries ago.

1 For instance, the National Glass Centre(2013) in Sunderland offers daily, free admission and demonstrations, but has no direct, public transport option from major cities like Glasgow.

Arts 2019, 8, 19; doi:10.3390/arts8010019 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 19 2 of 20

The history of glassblowing and the specific making processes involved have been well-documented with books covering centuries of glassmaking (Vávra 1954; Klein and Lloyd 1991) and museums such as the Museo del Vetro(2019) in Murano and the Corning Museum of Glass(2002a) in New York dedicated to the history, making, and collection of glass. Videos demonstrating the making processes are numerous with the Corning Museum of Glass(2002b) even offering regular live streaming, however, the sounds—a major output of the making process—have been relatively understudied. The sounds are both evidence of the making process and remains of the process, in much the same way as is the discarded glass, cast off in the workshop bins. Yet, the sounds are as inherent to the making as the intense heat of the furnace and the smells of burning wood and paper tools used to shape the glass. The glass studios are filled with sounds: the makers’ tools working the glass in various heated states, the breath of the makers inflating the glass, the glass itself under various stresses, and the heating/cooling equipment used in the processes. Glassblowers, especially beginners, even rely on the sounds of their tools on the glass to indicate material heating/cooling levels as they learn. Listening to the glass is often orally taught, but sociologist and glassmaker Erin O’Connor (O’Connor 2007, pp. 63, 71) indicates its importance in her writing. Understanding sound becomes part of the makers’ tacit knowledge as they listen to the glass to identify possible stressors while they work the material. The sounds of the glass studios are an integral part of the cultural and craft heritage of glassmaking.

1.1. Aims and Objectives The aims of Makers Marks were to capture, isolate, and preserve the sounds of the making processes in the glassblowing and coldworking studios, and then to share them with the public through digital technologies and glass art objects, using the captured sounds as foundational design elements. The project was interdisciplinary at its core, requiring collaborative expertise in glass, sound, and engineering. Based in Edinburgh, the lead visual designer recruited an international team of glass artists and technicians, audio engineers and composers, and electrical and computer engineers to carry out the aims and fulﬁll the 2015 Ingenious Award funding the work under the title of “Glass Whispers: Audio and Electrical Engineering Meets Studio Glass for Interactive, Personal Art Experiences”. This grant is part of a public engagement scheme developed by the Royal Academy of Engineering to “stimulate engineers to share their stories, passion, and expertise in innovative ways with wider audiences; to develop engineers’ communication and engagement skills; and to create debate between engineers and people of all ages to raise awareness of the diversity, nature and impact of engineering” (Royal Academy of Engineering 2019). The public engagement nature of the grant inﬂuenced the glass object design and vehicles through which the team ultimately shared the studio sounds.

1.2. Contribution to Knowledge The project’s output of a digital sound collection is the only free, publicly accessible library of glassmaking sounds that have been recorded, isolated, and processed through Binaural Auditory Scene Re-synthesis. The virtual instruments developed from the recorded glassmaking sounds are also new, as is the eight-minute, music composition derived entirely from the sounds of the making process. Additionally, the team’s use of metaphorical language as a studio process facilitation tool provides insight on successful communication for interdisciplinary, collaborative practices.

2. Recording and Isolating the Sounds of Studio Glassmaking The hotshop and coldworking studios of the Edinburgh College of Art Glass Department were the host environments for recording the sounds of this project (Figure1). Arts 2019,, 8,, 19x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of of 20 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

Figure 1. Panorama of the Edinburgh College of Art hotshop, the primary site for the recordings Figure(Image: 1. David Panorama Faleris of 2015). the Edinburgh College of Art ho hotshop,tshop, the primary site for the recordings (Image: David Faleris 2015). 2.1. Observation Day 2.1. Observation Day Before the formal recording session, the lead visual designer, the glass technician and her assistant,Before along thethe formal formalwith the recording recording lead audio/recording session, session, the leadthe leadengineer visual visual designer, and designer, lead the composer, glass the technician glass held technician andan “observation her assistant,and her alongassistant,day” in with the along thestudios. lead with audio/recordingThis the daylead served audio/recording multiple engineer purp and engineeroses lead as composer, and it was lead a heldchancecomposer, an for “observation theheld recording an “observation day” team in the to studios.day”learn inabout the This studios.health, day served safety, This multipleday and served protocol purposes multiple within as purp the it was studios,oses a chanceas itto was observe for a the chance recordingthe making for the team processesrecording to learn andteam about test to health,learnsound about levels safety, health, on and their protocol safety, field andrecorders within protocol the (Figure studios, within 2), tothe to observe studios,ask questions, the to makingobserve and processes theto experience making and processes testa hands-on sound and levels trialtest onsoundof working their levels ﬁeld the on recorders theirmaterial field (Figure with recorders 2the), toglass (Figure ask questions,technician 2), to ask’s and assistance.questions, to experience andThe toengineer a experience hands-on and triala composerhands-on of working trialalso theofexperimented working material the with with material the how glass towith technician’smaneuver the glass themselves assistance.technician and’s The assistance. their engineer equipment The and composerengineer around andthe also studiocomposer experimented without also withexperimenteddisrupting how tothe maneuver with glass how workers. themselves to maneuver For and the themselves their lead equipment designer and their aroundand equipment glass the technicians, studio around without the the studio disrupting day withoutwas thean glassdisruptingopportunity workers. the to For mapglass the out leadworkers. the designer formal For and therecording glass lead technicians, designersession and theand day planglass was the technicians, an work opportunity and thetechniques today map was out to theanbe formalopportunityrecorded. recording to map session out andthe planformal the recording work and techniquessession and to plan be recorded. the work and techniques to be recorded.

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 2. Observation day: ( a) Shows the lead designer planning with the recording engineer on the rightFigure andand 2. Observationthethe glassglass workers workers day: setting( asetting) Shows up up athe demonstrationa leaddemonstration designer (Image: planning (Image: David withDavid Faleris); the Faleris); recording and and (b )engineer shows(b) shows the on lead the recording/audiorightlead recording/audioand the glass engineer workers engineer recording setting recording up and a and testingdemonstration testing the soundthe sound(Image: levels levels David as the as Faleris); glassthe glass technician and technician (b) shapesshows shapes the glassleadthe glass recording/audio with with wet wet newspaper newspape engineer (Image:r (Image: reco Davidrding David Falerisand Faleris testing 2015). 2015). the sound levels as the glass technician shapes the glass with wet newspaper (Image: David Faleris 2015). 2.2. Recording Session 2.2. Recording Session 2.2. RecordingThe recording Session engineer and composer employed a stereo pair of condenser microphones The recording engineer and composer employed a stereo pair of condenser microphones (Figure3a) to capture the majority of the glassmaking sounds in high fidelity. A tiny, lavalier (FigureThe 3a) recording to capture engineer the majority and composer of the glassm employedaking asounds stereo inpair high of fidelity.condenser A microphonestiny, lavalier microphone (Figure3b), often worn on a lapel or collar for picking up voice on stage, was also (Figuremicrophone 3a) to(Figure capture 3b), the often majority worn ofon the a lapel glassm or akingcollar soundsfor picking in high up voicefidelity. on Astage, tiny, was lavalier also chosen to record selected techniques and environment sounds where its small size and flexible cable microphonechosen to record (Figure selected 3b), techniquesoften worn and on environma lapel orent collar sounds for wherepicking its up small voice size on and stage, flexible was cable also were beneficial. chosenwere beneficial. to record selected techniques and environment sounds where its small size and flexible cable were beneficial.

Arts 2019, 8, 19 4 of 20 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

(a) (b) (a) (b) Figure 3. Recording session images highlight the two microphones: (a) Shows the much larger pair of Figure 3. Recording session images highlight the two microphones: (a) Shows the much larger pair of condenser microphones on a boom, capturing the so soundund of hot glass flashed ﬂashed in water to create a condenser microphones on a boom, capturing the sound of hot glass flashed in water to create a crackled surfacesurface texture texture (Image: (Image: David David Faleris Faleris 2015); 2015); and and (b) depicts(b) depicts a tiny, a lavaliertiny, lavalier microphone microphone shown crackled surface texture (Image: David Faleris 2015); and (b) depicts a tiny, lavalier microphone embeddedshown embedded in the bin in the where bin discarded,where discarded, unwanted unwanted hot glass hot cools glass (Image: cools (Image: Lisa Naas Lisa 2015). Naas 2015). shown embedded in the bin where discarded, unwanted hot glass cools (Image: Lisa Naas 2015). During the recording session, the team focused on capturing the sounds emitted by the glass, DuringDuring the the recording recording session, session, the the teamteam focused on capturingcapturing the the sounds sounds emitted emitted by by the the glass, glass, as as as well as the sounds of the traditional tools and techniques, with which the artists used to manipulate wellwell as asthe the sounds sounds of of the the traditional traditional tools tools andand techniques, withwith which which the the artists artists used used to tomanipulate manipulate andand shape shape the the material material in in its its variousvarious various stagesstagesstages ofof heatingheating and and forming formingforming (Figure (Figure(Figure 4).4 4).). Studio StudioStudio environment environmentenvironment sounds,sounds, including including equipment equipment for for heating heating andandand cooling,cooling, were were also alsoalso recorded recordedrecorded (Figure (Figure(Figure 5).5 5).).

FigureFigure 4. 4.Capturing Capturing sounds sounds of of the the glassglass “marvering”“marvering” shaping technique technique (Image: (Image: David David Faleris Faleris 2015). 2015). Figure 4. Capturing sounds of the glass “marvering” shaping technique (Image: David Faleris 2015).

FigureFigure 5. 5.Recording Recording the the sound sound of of the the furnace, furnace, where where the the glassmakers glassmakers gathergather thethe hothot glassglass on the ends of of the pipes (Image: David Faleris 2015). theFigure pipes 5. Recording (Image: David the sound Faleris of 2015). the furnace, where the glassmakers gather the hot glass on the ends of the pipes (Image: David Faleris 2015).

Arts 2019, 8, 19 5 of 20

When the recording session ended, the team had captured over a hundred files of digital sound clips. All files recorded the ambient environment, but only in some did the team intentionally embrace the heavy machinery and unpredictable pops of cracking and breaking glass. Most of the recording attempts were intended to focus up close on the sounds emitted by the glass material and tools used during the making processes. Given this, the next step for the team was to clean the files of such extraneous sounds to better isolate the targets.

2.3. Cleaning and Constructing the Digital Sound Files The audio engineer cleaned and isolated the target sounds from the original source audio recordings, using Auditory Scene Analysis software in development within the Informatics Department at the University of Edinburgh. As the descriptions of this technology and his process were ﬁlled with technical jargon, he found a way to explain his work to the project team by using visual metaphors, likening the auditory software to photo editing software. He used words such as sound “objects” and “masking” to describe his Binaural Auditory Scene Re-synthesis technique. Essentially, he worked with “grains” of sound in the same way that photo editor’s work with pixels of colour. In a video clip from the Makers Marks(2016) documentary ﬁlm for the project, Marcin Pietruszewski explains his technique this way: It’s a very similar process to what happens in vision. If you think about the virtual processes which try to model how we perceive the world visually ... the software analyzing a photo must be able to distinguish which edges of an object belong to the same object even if two objects are standing in a line or something is masking [the edge]. Basically it’s a masking effect and the same phenomena occurs in our auditory perception. That we hear so many different noises but we are able to separate them into individual streams. The challenge for him was when environmental sound obscured the target sound in the same way that an object might obscure a portion of another object in an image. In these cases, he had to add in the grains of sound that were obscured or missing, in order to achieve a full construction of the isolated source sound. He explained that his process tries to ‘unmask’ the sound objects.

3. Developing Raw Sound Material After the audio engineer had completed his cleaning and any necessary reconstruction of the digital source sounds, the lead composer offered these sounds to an eight-member, audio engineering/sound design2 team to develop. Using digital audio workstations (DAWs) such as Logic Pro (Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA), Live (Ableton, Berlin, Germany), and Pro Tools (Avid Technology, Burlington, MA, USA), the sound designers manipulated various qualities of the source audio—ranging from the basic parameters of time, pitch, and volume, to more complex characteristics of sound, such as colour and timbre (see Figure6). The team members approached the design of their new sounds in personal ways. Some took advantage of the percussive elements of the source audio samples to create drum kits, while others played with granular synthesis to generate glitchy, electronic synths. Some created ever-evolving soundscapes using just one source audio file, while others manipulated several different files before layering them into short, complex loops. The sound designers, working independently in various countries, returned their new sounds to the lead composer, who compiled them into a virtual instrument library. A virtual instrument, in a broad sense, is one or more audio files and/or software itself, digitally engineered to be played or programmed to serve as one sonic component of a larger music work (Jones 2017). While the cleaned source audio clips can also be used as parts of sonic works or sound effects within digital media3, these

2 In this paper, “audio engineer” and “sound designer” to identify speciﬁc team members are used interchangeably as some people held dual roles during the project or certain tasks required both expertise from the same person. 3 “Digital media” includes ﬁlm, television, animation, video games, mobile apps, etc. Arts 2019, 8, 19 6 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 newly developed sounds within the virtual instrument library were explicitly developed with music these newly developed sounds within the virtual instrument library were explicitly developed with making in mind. music making in mind.

FigureFigure 6. This 6. is This a screenshot is a screenshot image ofimage RX (iZotope, of RX (iZotope Cambridge,, Cambridge, MA, USA), MA, one USA), of many one audioof many post-production audio post-production tools used in audio manipulation by the sound design team (Image: David Faleris tools used in audio manipulation by the sound design team (Image: David Faleris 2016). 2016). 4. Sharing the Sounds of Glassmaking through Digital Technologies 4. Sharing the Sounds of Glassmaking through Digital Technologies Glass has a more recent history of being used for sound design and special effects in digital media, Glass has a more recent history of being used for sound design and special effects in digital as its materialmedia, as propertiesits material andproperties ubiquitous and ubiquitous nature enable nature soundsenable sounds associated associated with with tinkling, tinkling, cracking, shattering,cracking, breaking, shattering, and scratching.breaking, an Thed scratching. Makers MarksThe Makers sound Marks collection sound adds collection to the adds breadth to the of audio materialbreadth available of audio for material use in digital available media for use with in digi thesetal andmedia additional with theseassociations. and additional Each associations. source audio soundEach and source virtual audio instrument sound and in virtual the project’s instrument library in the collection project’s library can be collection used as can it is be for used the as creation it is of sonic worksfor the orcreation can be of further sonic works tweaked or can and be developedfurther tweaked by new and users. developed There by are new glass users. sound There collections are and aglass few virtualsound collections instrument and “glass” a few virtual libraries instrument available “glass” by otherlibraries developers; available by the other one developers; created by this the one created by this project team fits within that niche. For instance, United Studio Effects (2012) project team fits within that niche. For instance, United Studio Effects(2012) produced an album of produced an album of glassmaking sound effects in 2012, and while open to the public and easily glassmakingaccessed soundon Amazon effects Music in 2012,and other and music while websites, open to it is the not public free and and does easily not contain accessed engineered on Amazon Musicvirtual and other instruments music like websites, the Makers it is notMarks free collection. and does Related not contain virtual engineeredinstrument libraries, virtual such instruments as like the“Glass Makers Instruments” Marks collection. by the RelatedVienna Symphoni virtual instrumentc Library libraries,(2018) and such Soniccouture’s as “Glass Instruments”(2018) by the“Glass-Works” Vienna Symphonic offer Librarythe sounds(2018 )of and the Soniccouture cold glass (2018outputs—the) “Glass-Works” final products offer the of sounds the of the coldglassmaking—recorded glass outputs—the as final they productswere played of or the broken glassmaking—recorded or used as percussion. asThe they Makers were Marks played or brokensound or used collection as percussion. and virtual The instrument Makers library Marks is sounda new contribution collection andto knowledge virtual instrument as it focuseslibrary on is the sounds of the glassmaking process and is the only such open access, public library comprised of a new contribution to knowledge as it focuses on the sounds of the glassmaking process and is the these sounds, processed with Binaural Auditory Scene Re-Synthesis. only suchAs open this access, Makers public Marks libraryproject was comprised underway of thesein 2015, sounds, two other processed related projects with Binaural were also Auditory in Scenedevelopment: Re-Synthesis. one in the United States and one in Italy. In the United States, the Wheaton Arts and AsCultural this Makers Center, known Marks for project its focus was on underwaythe glass medium, in 2015, commissioned two other a related new sound projects artwork were from also in development:British installation one in the artist United Luke StatesJerram and(Jerram one 2019). in Italy. The In outcome the United was a States, four-minute the Wheaton work, titled Arts and Cultural“Keep Center, on Turning”, known for that its features focus on snippets the glass of medium,glassmaker commissioned interviews mixed a new with sound live-recorded artwork from Britishsounds installation from the artist hotshop Luke (Jerram Jerram 2019). (Jerram The recorded 2019). Thesounds outcome appear to was focus a four-minuteon dropped, broken, work, titled “Keepand on Turning”,smashed glass that and features there snippetsis no development of glassmaker of virtual interviews instruments mixed from with the live-recorded original source sounds audio recordings. Jerram also does not make any of his live-recorded sounds available, as the sole from the hotshop (Jerram 2019). The recorded sounds appear to focus on dropped, broken, and output was the commissioned sound artwork. Meanwhile, Max Casacci, the Italian composer known smashed glass and there is no development of virtual instruments from the original source audio recordings. Jerram also does not make any of his live-recorded sounds available, as the sole output was the commissioned sound artwork. Meanwhile, Max Casacci, the Italian composer known as Vaghe Stelle, was also recording the sounds of glass being made and broken in the furnaces of Berengo Studio on Murano (Casacci and Mana 2018; Fondazione Berengo 2018). These recordings involved Arts 2019, 8, 19 7 of 20 sounds of the glassmaking process and the source audio recordings were heavily manipulated to serve a musical output. Casacci collaborated with electronic music artist Daniele Mana to produce “Glasstress”, an eight-track digital album released in 2016 (Casacci and Mana 2018). Each music track uses the glass recordings as musically-developed source audio alongside a variety of synthesizers, strings, keyboards, guitars, and voice sample. While similar to Jerram, Casacci did not offer any of his glass studio recordings for purchase or open access. The Makers Marks lead composer also created a musical output derived from sounds of the hotshop, but this output was built entirely from the sounds of glassmaking and ensuing virtual instrument development. “Makers Suite” is a complete, eight–minute, music work with every sonic element traceable back to a source audio recording of the glassmaking process. Created to mark the occasion of the project’s first exhibition in October 2016, the piece can now be heard on the project’s website at http://www.inconcertwithglass.com/makers-suite. Thus, while making sound effects and music from glass and glassmaking audio recordings is not wholly original and new to the field, “Makers Suite” is a new contribution in that it is a music composition derived entirely from glassmaking sounds. The audio library created from the Makers Marks project contains the only open access collection of glassmaking sounds processed with Binaural Auditory Scene Re-Synthesis, which works with sound isolation at the granular level. Additionally, the source audio and resulting virtual instruments developed during this project can now be used by other artists and designers to create standalone sonic artworks or complementary audio for visual media. The library is available for download on the project website also at http://www.inconcertwithglass. com/makers-suite: Library Sets 1–4 hold the source audio files of glassmaking sounds and Library Set 5 contains the new virtual instruments created from the source audio. The project website is designed to appeal to a wide public of all ages and backgrounds. It uses clear text, many images, and the downloadable files are in a .wav format that most computers can easily open. The site is populated with the key words of “glass”, “sound”, “design”, “art”, “engineering”, and “composing” for an audience in the creative industries. Additionally, younger high school and elementary students researching various topics, or hobbyists, might also come across it and find it useful. To further the project, safeguard the work, and continue to expand the audience, the team is currently searching for a larger, more established, digital repository with which to give the sound files. Perhaps the University of Edinburgh where the project is founded would be the first place to store the files for open access, scholarly, research purposes. The team is considering cataloguing the files from both the glass perspective and the sound perspective, while also offering the files in various formats to enable the study of the sounds in different ways. Recording, preserving, and sharing the sounds of the glassmaking process through this digital, online library collection was a goal for the team, but the group also worked to expand its reach specifically within the Edinburgh community of its host institution to engage the public with the audio engineering and engineers’ stories using glass art objects as vehicles in exhibition. Creating the audio library set the foundation for the interdisciplinary, collaborative research that followed to make the objects.

5. Sharing the Sounds of Glassmaking through Glass Art Objects The team regrouped once a month after the recording session for discussion about the next steps for the project. They met in the glass studios, the recording studios, and over lunch outside of the workshop spaces. During these meetings, the lead visual designer pushed the members to find common ground among the interests and disciplines represented within the team: art/design, music/sound, and engineering. The team members each had different, specific interests in the project. For instance, after working with the sounds to clean them, the lead recording/audio engineer found it sonically interesting to separate form from frequency and discussed wanting to take his model of resonance and put it in different spaces. The lead visual designer, on the other hand, was most interested in the sound material that was left as remains of the glassmaking. There were, however, shared and overlapping Arts 2019, 8, 19 8 of 20 interests of the group that were noted in February 2016 meeting minutes as “interested in gesture ... the performance of working the glass”. The team members also agreed that they wanted to bring the Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20 source audio and new virtual instrument sounds back to the glass itself. To organize themselves and their workmost aroundinterested that in the thought, sound theymaterial developed that was theleft team-unifying,as remains of the practice-based glassmaking. There research were,question: “Howhowever, can we embedshared and our overlapping recorded interests sounds of of the the group glassmaking that were noted process in February back into 2016 themeeting glass itself?” The teamminutes could as “interested not come toin gesture agreement … the on performance one approach of working to frame the glass”. a single The response team members because also the team agreed that they wanted to bring the source audio and new virtual instrument sounds back to the leaders interpreted the question in different ways. Instead, the group agreed to work concurrently glass itself. To organize themselves and their work around that thought, they developed the on twoteam-unifying, glass projects, practice-based with both research taking intoquestion: consideration “How can we the embed need our to fulfillrecorded the sounds public of engagement the grant byglassmaking highlighting process the back engineering into the glass or theitself?” engineers’ The team stories could withinnot come the to art.agreement The end on resultone was a cohesiveapproach body ofto frame work, a butsingle the response differing because interpretations the team leaders of the interpreted research the question question sent in different the art works in separateways. directions, Instead, the which group will agreed be discussed to work concurrent in eachly of on the two output glass descriptions.projects, with both Both taking research into outputs incorporateconsideration digital the technologies, need to fulfill glass the public objects, engagement and highlight grant by the highlighting engineering, the butengineering the “Sounding or the Glass” engineers’ stories within the art. The end result was a cohesive body of work, but the differing project, a glass object/musical instrument, approached the question rather literally, while “Glass in interpretations of the research question sent the art works in separate directions, which will be Translation”,discussed a in series each ofof the glass output objects descriptions. paired with Both sounds,research outputs investigated incorporate it more digital abstractly. technologies, glass objects, and highlight the engineering, but the “Sounding Glass” project, a glass object/musical 5.1. “Soundinginstrument, Glass”: approached A Literal the question Approach rather to Embed literally, the while Sounds “Glass into in Glass Translation”, through Engineeringa series of glass “Soundingobjects paired Glass” with sounds, is a glass inve objectstigated (see it more Figure abstractly.7) that allows the audience to explore sounds of glassmaking5.1. “Sounding by touching Glass”: A Litera andl handlingApproach to theEmbed glass the Sounds piece into itself. Glass Inthrough the Engineering average user’s hands, it is a performing object that can lead the audience on a pleasant sonic adventure, while in a trained “Sounding Glass” is a glass object (see Figure 7) that allows the audience to explore sounds of musician’sglassmaking hands, by it cantouching also becomeand handling a calculated, the glass musicalpiece itself. instrument-object In the average user’s of performance. hands, it is a As such, “Soundingperforming Glass” object follows that incan the lead long the tradition audience ofon musicala pleasant instruments sonic adventure, created while from in glassa trained and played by hand.musician’s Musical hands, singing it can glasses also become were known a calculat ined, Persia musical as early instrument-object as the 14th centuryof performance. (Apel 1972 As ). These glasses,such, which “Sounding were oftenGlass” wine follows glasses in the filledlong tradit withion water of musical to various instruments levels created to generate from glass specific and pitches, were playedplayed by hand. running Musical wet singing fingers glasses along were the rims. know Inn in the Persia mid-1700s as early Benjaminas the 14th Franklincentury (Apel invented the 1972). These glasses, which were often wine glasses filled with water to various levels to generate glass armonica, a musical instrument of glass bowls tuned to notes by their varying size, fitted one specific pitches, were played by running wet fingers along the rims. In the mid-1700s Benjamin insideFranklin the next invented with cork, the glass and armonica, played by a musical hand with instrument moistened of glass fingers bowls (tunedThe Franklinto notes by Institute their 2018). Even today,varying orchestras size, fitted andone inside musicians the next such with as cork, Robert and Tisoplayed (Tiso by hand2018 )with and moistened DuoGlass fingers(2018 )(The continue to showcaseFranklin singing Institute glasses 2018). and Even glass today, harps orchestras in their and performances.musicians such as Contemporary Robert Tiso (Tiso glass2018) artistand Carrie FertigDuoGlass takes glass (2018) musical continue instrument to showcase making singing to aglasses new, liveand level glass withharps her in Torchertheir performances. Chamber Arkestra (FertigContemporary 2018). In Torcher glass Chamberartist Carrie performances, Fertig takes glass Fertig musical creates instrument glass making percussion to a new, instruments live level with her with her Torcher Chamber Arkestra (Fertig 2018). In Torcher Chamber performances, Fertig creates torch workingglass percussion in front instruments of live audiences with her torch and working collaborates in front with of live professional audiences and musicians, collaborates who with play them as sheprofessional finishes making musicians, them. who play them as she finishes making them.

FigureFigure 7. “Sounding 7. “Sounding Glass” Glass” is is a a blown blown glassglass piece piece with with a hollow a hollow interior interior housing housing copper copperstrips and strips and electronics. It measures 20 cm high × 30 cm diameter. (Image: Lisa Naas 2016). electronics. It measures 20 cm high × 30 cm diameter. (Image: Lisa Naas 2016).

“Sounding Glass”, while related to these other instruments, differs signiﬁcantly in that the physical glass of the object is not the emitter of the instrument’s musical sounds. Rather, it is an Arts 2019, 8, 19 9 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 engineered,“Sounding silent agent Glass”, through while whichrelated embeddedto these other sounds instruments, of the differs glassmaking significantly are in conveyed that the to the audience.physical The object’sglass of the physical object is form not (athe convex, emitter of shallow the instrument’s vessel with musical dimples) sounds. is Rather, designed it is toan directly referenceengineered, the musical silent Hang agent through or handpan, which aembedded metal instrument sounds of the requiring glassmaking both are engineering conveyed to the and sonic sculptingaudience. in its makingThe object’s (Venuti physical 2018 form). Referencing(a convex, shal thelow handpanvessel with withdimples) the is object designed form to directly is intended to alert thereference audience the thatmusical the Hang piece or is handpan, playedby a metal hand. instrument Handlers requiring play “Sounding both engineering Glass” and through sonic touch sculpting in its making (Venuti 2018). Referencing the handpan with the object form is intended to and gesture, initiating the project’s source audio recordings and/or the new virtual instrument sounds. alert the audience that the piece is played by hand. Handlers play “Sounding Glass” through touch These soundsand gesture, were initiating carefully the selected project’s and source orchestrated audio recordings together, and/or sonically, the new to operatevirtual instrument as one cohesive instrumentsounds. of performance.These sounds were The carefully physical selected contact and of or handchestrated on glass together, sends sonically, digital to signals operate to as aone computer programcohesive that outputs instrument sound of performance. to the audience The physical through contact headphones of hand on glass (see sends Figure digital8). signals In exhibition to a 4, the computercomputer program program thatthat mediatesoutputs sound the soundto the au isdience displayed through alongside headphones the glass(see Figure object 8). so In that the 4 audienceexhibition can also, the examine computer its audioprogram engineering that mediates and theprogramming, sound is displayed as alongside its numbers the glass and object meters so visually that the audience can also examine its audio engineering and programming, as its numbers and ﬂuctuate during user interaction (also Figure8). meters visually fluctuate during user interaction (also Figure 8).

Figure 8.Figure“Sounding 8. “Sounding Glass” Glass” played played by by a visitora visitor toto an op openen studio studio day day in 2016 in 2016 (Image: (Image: Alex Hall Alex 2016). Hall 2016).

5.1.1. Making5.1.1. Making the Glass the Glass for “Soundingfor “Sounding Glass” Glass” The lead designer, the lead composer, three glass artists, and one electrical engineer/computer The lead designer, the lead composer, three glass artists, and one electrical engineer/computer programmer comprised the team that created “Sounding Glass”. Tasks to develop the piece were programmerinitially comprised divided according the team to fields that of created expertise, “Sounding but ultimately, Glass”. it took Tasks additional to develop interdisciplinary the piece were initiallysubgroups divided working according collaboratively to ﬁelds of to expertise, complete the but work. ultimately, Two prototypes it took were additional necessary interdisciplinary before the subgroupsfinalworking piece was collaborativelycreated, but all work tocomplete began in the the glass work. studios Two with prototypes the artist subgroup were necessary creating the before the ﬁnal pieceglass was (Figure created, 9). but all work began in the glass studios with the artist subgroup creating the glass (Figure 9 ). 4 “Sounding Glass” was exhibited three times for the local Edinburgh community in 2016: (1) as part of the Contemporary Glass Society’s “Time to Share” workshop at the North Lands Creative Glass Conference hosted at Edinburgh College of Art in September, (2) with the Makers Marks open studio exhibition during 4 “Soundingthe Glass” Edinburgh was exhibitedCollege of three Art times October for theOpen local Days, Edinburgh and (3) community in November in 2016: at Summerhall (1) as part of in the a Contemporaryjoint Glass Society’snetworking/exhibition/public “Time to Share” workshop engagement at the North event Lands with Edinburgh Creative Glass Hacklab Conference and ASCUS hosted Art at & Edinburgh Science. College of Art in September, (2) with the Makers Marks open studio exhibition during the Edinburgh College of Art October Open Days, and (3) in November at Summerhall in a joint networking/exhibition/public engagement event with Edinburgh Hacklab and ASCUS Art & Science. Arts 2019, 8, 19 10 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

(a) (b)

Figure 9.FigureDeveloping 9. Developing a “Sounding a “Sounding Glass” Glass” prototype: prototype: (a (a) )Shows Shows the the team team shaping shaping the overall the overall glass glass

vessel formvessel (Image: form (Image: David David Faleris Faleris 2016);(a) 2016); and and ( b(b)) showsshows the the detail detail work work of forming of forming the dimples(b the) dimples on the on the surface. (Image: David Faleris 2016). surface.Figure (Image: 9. Developing David Faleris a “Sounding 2016). Glass” prototype: (a) Shows the team shaping the overall glass 5.1.2.vessel Designing form (Image: the Sound David Touch Faleris Points 2016); forand “Sounding (b) shows the Glass” detail work of forming the dimples on the 5.1.2. Designingsurface. the (Image: Sound David Touch Faleris Points 2016). for “Sounding Glass” The composer, with the lead designer, mapped out where they wanted the touch points to be The composer, with the lead designer, mapped out where they wanted the touch points to be located5.1.2. Designing on the glass the Soundobject (FigureTouch Points10). To for identi “Soundingfy the touch Glass” points, they handled the prototype and locateddiscussed on the glass how objecta visitor (Figure might approach10). To identify the glass the form. touch The points,four prominent they handled dimples theon the prototype glass and discussedobject howThe were acomposer, visitor both visual might with and the approach physical lead designer, focus the glass points, mapped form. cues ou Theliket where those four they prominentof a wantedHang/handpan the dimples touch (Venuti onpoints the 2018). to glass be object located on the glass object (Figure 10). To identify the touch points, they handled the prototype and were bothThe visual pair decided and physical that these focus should points, be markedly cues like different those from of a Hang/handpanthe other touch points. (Venuti Each 2018 dimple). The pair discussed how a visitor might approach the glass form. The four prominent dimples on the glass decidedwould that theseend up should being be mapped markedly to trigger different different, from theactive other and touch dynamic points. source Each sounds dimple of wouldthe end glassmakingobject were both process visual (e.g., and physicalmarvering, focus flashing points, hotcues glass like thosein water). of a Hang/handpan The remaining (Venuti topside 2018). of up being“SoundingThe mapped pair decided Glass” to trigger that was these linked different, should to various be active markedly passive and dynamicanddifferent static from source source the sounds other sounds touchfrom of thepoints. the hotshop, glassmaking Each suchdimple as process (e.g., marvering,thewould steady end ﬂashingrunning up being furnace, hot mapped glass while in to water). the trigger underside The different, remaining of the active object topside andwas dynamicset of up “Sounding to triggersource selectedsounds Glass” virtual wasof the linked to variousinstrumentglassmaking passive and sounds process static created source(e.g., by marvering, soundsthe sound from designflashing the team. hotshop,hot glass suchin water). as the The steady remaining running topside furnace, of while the underside“Sounding of Glass” the object was linked was set to various up to triggerpassive and selected static source virtual sounds instrument from the sounds hotshop, created such as by the the steady running furnace, while the underside of the object was set up to trigger selected virtual sound designinstrument team. sounds created by the sound design team.

Figure 10. The composer’s drawing shows the glass object from an aerial perspective and indicates the 21 touch points linked to sensors attached within the glass hollow inside. (Image: David Faleris

2016). Figure 10.FigureThe 10. composer’s The composer’s drawing drawing shows shows the the glass glass object objectfrom from an aerial perspective perspective and and indicates indicates the 21 touchthe points 21 touch linked points to linked sensors to attachedsensors attached within wi thethin glass the glass hollow hollow inside. inside. (Image: (Image: DavidDavid Faleris 2016). 2016).

Every sound mapped to the object was carefully curated to ensure a harmonious playing experience. All sound volumes were adjusted to match one another, and all audio ﬁles were prepared as seamless loops so the user could hold a hand to the object without the sound ever breaking. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, 19 Every sound mapped to the object was carefully curated to ensure a harmonious playing 11 of 20 experience. All sound volumes were adjusted to match one another, and all audio files were prepared as seamless loops so the user could hold a hand to the object without the sound ever 5.1.3. Makingbreaking. “Sounding Glass” Sound “Sounding5.1.3. Making Glass” “Sounding works because Glass” Sound the electrical engineer and the composer combined their skills to allow touch to“Sounding trigger and Glass” alter works sound. because The the hollow electrical interior engineer of and “Sounding the composer Glass” combined is a complextheir skills scheme of Arduino boardsto allow and touch electronics to trigger and that alter use sound. copper The strips hollow attached interior of to “Sounding the interior Glass” glass is a surface complex to conduct human capacitance—naturalscheme of Arduino boards human and electronics electrical that charge use copper (Figure strips 11attached). to the interior glass surface to conduct human capacitance—natural human electrical charge (Figure 11).

(a) (b)

Figure 11.FigurePrototyping 11. Prototyping “Sounding “Sounding Glass” Glass” and testingand testing copper copper strip strip capacitance: capacitance: ((aa)) PrototypePrototype II II showing showing the entire glass piece (Image: Lisa Naas 2016); and (b) prototype I showing a close-up of a b the entire glasscopper piece strip (Image: (Image: Lisa Lisa Naas Naas 2016). 2016); and ( ) prototype I showing a close-up of a copper strip (Image: Lisa Naas 2016). The engineer programmed “Sounding Glass” so that, when one turns it on, it reads the sensors The engineerand calibrates programmed according to “Sounding the first person Glass” that sotouches that, it when and sets one paramete turns itrs on, based it reads on that the first sensors and calibrates accordinghandling. Once to theactivated first personand calibrated, that touches the capacitance it and drives sets parametersthe Max/MSP basedprogram on (Figure that first12), handling. custom-built by the lead composer to run on a computer attached to the object. User touch is not Once activatedpressure-sensitive; and calibrated, pushing the harder capacitance will not drives make the the sound Max/MSP louder. program Rather, the (Figure amount 12 of), the custom-built by the leadcopper composer strip covered to run by on the a computeruser’s fingers attached or hand directly to the object.correlates User to the touch playback is not volume. pressure-sensitive; The programming also includes support for common user gestures such as swiping, which further alters pushing harderArts 2019, 8 will, x FOR not PEER make REVIEW the sound louder. Rather, the amount of the copper12 stripof 20 covered by the user’sthe handler’s fingers sound or hand experience. directly correlates to the playback volume. The programming also provoked the team to question and debate the idea and nature of sound and of glass, while the final includes support5.2. “Glass forin Translation”: common Abstractly user gestures Embedding such the Sounds as swiping, and Audio Engineering which further into the altersGlass the handler’s work is offered to the audience to consider the same: Is the sound in the glass? Is the glass the sound experience. sound?“Glass in Translation” developed concurrent to “Sounding Glass”, with its team interpreting the research question more loosely as a catalyst for a conceptual artwork. Academic philosophers Peter Goldie and Elisabeth Schellekens debate “concept” in art within their introduction to Philosophy and Conceptual Art and argue that if approached philosophically and inclusively, “conceptual art” has certain characteristics in common, including an emphasis on ideas (Goldie and Schellekens 2009, p. xii). Schellekens goes as far as to say that the idea is the art and that the idea is the material of the art work, relying on similar words used by conceptual artist Sol LeWitt in 1967 to develop her argument (Schellekens 2009, p. 74). Philosopher Wesley D. Cray (Cray 2014, p. 235) acknowledges that the academic consensus is that “conceptual art” is about ideas, but challenges Schellekens’ more extreme view, positing instead that “conceptual artworks are not ideas but art[e]facts imbued with ideas”. For “Glass in Translation”, the question of “embedding” was less about literal placement of the sound in glass and more about bringing the idea of the sound back to the glass material, from where it originated. During its making, the “Glass in Translation” subproject

Figure 12.FigureMax/MSP 12. Max/MSP (Cycling (Cycling ’74, ’74, San San Francisco, Francisco, USA) USA) screenshot screenshot showing showing real-time real-time capacitance capacitance levels for each copper strip sensor, determining which sound files play back at correlating volumes levels for each copper strip sensor, determining which sound ﬁles play back at correlating volumes (Image: David Faleris 2016). (Image: David Faleris 2016). For “Glass in Translation” three newly developed virtual instruments from the glassmaking source audio were the focal points. The team that worked on “Glass in Translation” included the lead designer, the lead composer, three glass artists, and two audio engineers/sound designers. The project aimed to highlight the use of the metaphorical language and analogies found in the dialogue among the team members, especially that of the audio engineers as they worked to articulate their design and processes during the collaboration. The lead composer and the audio engineers each provided one of their own newly developed virtual instruments to the lead visual designer. The instruments were each delivered as a single audio file, along with a title, and a written description of the sound. The lead designer considered these her raw materials, containing the idea of the sounds, which she was to return to the glass as designed objects. Based on her personal reading, listening, and understanding of these materials, she translated all of them into sketches, using pen, paper, and Photoshop (Adobe, San Jose, CA, USA). Working collaboratively in the hotshop, she and the glass artists then realized the sketches as objects, putting the idea of the sounds back into the glass. The glass, the audio, and the written descriptions of the sounds are all displayed together when in exhibition5, with each set of glass objects corresponding to a new virtual instrument sound (Figure 13). Musicians, composers, and audio engineers sometimes describe sound using visual language in terms such as “colour”, “texture”, “shape”, “weight”, and others (Feeney 2016), while some go as far as to refer to entire compositions as sound paintings (Levitin 2007, p. 55). This is a metaphorical way

Arts 2019, 8, 19 12 of 20

5.2. “Glass in Translation”: Abstractly Embedding the Sounds and Audio Engineering into the Glass “Glass in Translation” developed concurrent to “Sounding Glass”, with its team interpreting the research question more loosely as a catalyst for a conceptual artwork. Academic philosophers Peter Goldie and Elisabeth Schellekens debate “concept” in art within their introduction to Philosophy and Conceptual Art and argue that if approached philosophically and inclusively, “conceptual art” has certain characteristics in common, including an emphasis on ideas (Goldie and Schellekens 2009, p. xii). Schellekens goes as far as to say that the idea is the art and that the idea is the material of the art work, relying on similar words used by conceptual artist Sol LeWitt in 1967 to develop her argument (Schellekens 2009, p. 74). Philosopher Wesley D. Cray (Cray 2014, p. 235) acknowledges that the academic consensus is that “conceptual art” is about ideas, but challenges Schellekens’ more extreme view, positing instead that “conceptual artworks are not ideas but art[e]facts imbued with ideas”. For “Glass in Translation”, the question of “embedding” was less about literal placement of the sound in glass and more about bringing the idea of the sound back to the glass material, from where it originated. During its making, the “Glass in Translation” subproject provoked the team to question and debate the idea and nature of sound and of glass, while the ﬁnal work is offered to the audience to consider the same: Is the sound in the glass? Is the glass the sound? For “Glass in Translation” three newly developed virtual instruments from the glassmaking source audio were the focal points. The team that worked on “Glass in Translation” included the lead designer, the lead composer, three glass artists, and two audio engineers/sound designers. The project aimed to highlight the use of the metaphorical language and analogies found in the dialogue among the team members, especially that of the audio engineers as they worked to articulate their design and processes during the collaboration. The lead composer and the audio engineers each provided one of their own newly developed virtual instruments to the lead visual designer. The instruments were each delivered as a single audio ﬁle, along with a title, and a written description of the sound. The lead designer considered these her raw materials, containing the idea of the sounds, which she was to return to the glass as designed objects. Based on her personal reading, listening, and understanding of these materials, she translated all of them into sketches, using pen, paper, and Photoshop (Adobe, San Jose, CA, USA). Working collaboratively in the hotshop, she and the glass artists then realized the sketches as objects, putting the idea of the sounds back into the glass. The glass, the audio, and the written descriptions of the sounds are all displayed together when in exhibition5, with each set of glass objects corresponding to a new virtual instrument sound (Figure 13). Musicians, composers, and audio engineers sometimes describe sound using visual language in terms such as “colour”, “texture”, “shape”, “weight”, and others (Feeney 2016), while some go as far as to refer to entire compositions as sound paintings (Levitin 2007, p. 55). This is a metaphorical way to communicate the information and is particularly useful in discussing abstract sonic concepts. It is commonplace and no longer so obvious as a metaphor, but it is visual language found within the aural. This visual language was quite common within the conversation among the team members, especially as the audio engineers and composer discussed the sounds with members from other disciplines. This visual in the aural is an intersection point between music and visual art and was the focus of this second subproject.

5 “Glass in Translation” was exhibited three times for the Edinburgh community for public engagement with engineering: (1) as part of the studio showing for the Edinburgh College of Art Open Days in October 2016, (2) in exhibition for the Summerhall networking event with Hacklab and ASCUS Art & Science in November 2016, and (3) in the National Museum of Scotland for the 2017 Research Through Design Conference. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20 to communicate the information and is particularly useful in discussing abstract sonic concepts. It is commonplace and no longer so obvious as a metaphor, but it is visual language found within the aural. This visual language was quite common within the conversation among the team members, especially as the audio engineers and composer discussed the sounds with members from other Artsdisciplines.2019, 8, 19 This visual in the aural is an intersection point between music and visual art and was13 ofthe 20 focus of this second subproject.

Figure 13. The full collection of glass objects that comprise “Glass in Translation”. From left to right: “Italian“Italian Nightmares”,Nightmares”, “Makers“Makers Whirlpool”,Whirlpool”, andand “Ewok“Ewok Machine”.Machine”. (Image:(Image: AlkistisAlkistis TerziTerzi 2016).2016).

The metaphormetaphor isis most most widely widely recognized recognized as as a literarya literary device, device, featuring featuring prominently prominently in such in such lyric writinglyric writing as poetry as andpoetry fiction. and In fiction. using it,In the using writer it, describes the writer ‘x’ asdescribes ‘y’, implying ‘x’ as that ‘y’, associations implying withthat ‘y’associations can be carried with over‘y’ can to be ‘x’ carried to offer over a deeper to ‘x’ understanding to offer a deeper of ‘x’. understanding Jan Zwicky (ofZwicky ‘x’. Jan 2013 Zwicky, p. 1), author(Zwicky of 2013,Lyric p. Philosophy 1), authorand of Lyric developer Philosophy of lyric and inquiry,developer describes of lyric inquiry, the metaphor describes as “the the metaphor linguistic expressionas “the linguistic of the resultsexpression of focused of the analogicalresults of thinking”.focused analogical In I Is an thinking”. Other, writer In JamesI Is an GrearyOther, (writer2011) putsJames forth Greary arguments (2011) basedputs forth on historical arguments evidence based andon linguisticshistorical evidence for the metaphor and linguistics being the for basic the buildingmetaphor block being to the communication, basic building comprehension, block to communication, invention, and comprehension, discovery. Greary invention,(2011, p. and 20) positsdiscovery. that Greary metaphors (2011, are p. much 20) posits more that than metaphors literary devices are much or evenmore devices than literary of lyric devices inquiry, or aseven he statesdevices that of lyric “metaphorical inquiry, as thinking he states is that the “metaphorical way we make thinking sense of is the the world, way we and make every sense individual of the metaphorworld, and is every a specific individual instance metaphor of this imaginative is a specific processinstance at of work”. this imaginative He asserts process that “metaphors at work”. areHe thereforeasserts that not “metaphors confined to are spoken therefore or written not confined language” to spoken (Greary or 2011 written, p. 20). language” In Mental (Greary Leaps: Analogy2011, p. in20). Creative In Mental Thought Leaps:, theAnalogy cognitive in Creative scientists Thought Holyoak, the cognitive and Thagard scientists(1999 Holyoak, p. 5) discuss and Thagard metaphor (1999, or analogy,p. 5) discuss as “model-buildingmetaphor or analogy, in the as mind “model-bui to understandlding in the something mind to inunderstand the world”. something They explain in the thatworld”. carrying They overexplain associations that carrying from over the sourceassociations analog from (the the known source domain analog with (the familiar, known domain learned patterns)with familiar, to the learned target analogpatterns) (the to relativelythe target unfamiliaranalog (the domain) relatively is theunfamiliar essence domain) of analogical is the thinking essence (ofHolyoak analogical and Thagardthinking 1999 (Holyoak, p. 2). Just and as GrearyThagard describes 1999, p. metaphor, 2). Just asHolyoak Greary and describes Thagard (metaphor,1999, p. 9) alsoHolyoak write and how Thagard this ‘carrying (1999, p. over’9) also develops write how a systematicthis ‘carrying set over’ of correspondences develops a systematic between set the of sourcecorrespondences and the targetbetween so the that source one canand the see target the thing so that as one ifit can were see the another, thing as “creating if it were a another, tension between“creating twoa tension perspectives: between the two thing perspectives: as itself and the thething thing as itself as something and the thing else”. as Most something interestingly, else”. theyMost writeinterestingly, that analogy they bywrite “its that very analogy nature freelyby “its oversteps very nature the traditionalfreely oversteps boundaries the traditional between knowledgeboundaries domains,between makingknowledge it possible domains, to use making ideas fromit possible one domain to use to ideas achieve from insights one indomain another” to (achieveHolyoak insights and Thagard in another” 1999, pp. (Holyoak ix–x). They and argue Thagard that 1999, analogy pp. allowsix–x). They our minds argue to that form analogy ideas that allows are “beyondour minds sensory to form experience” ideas andthat “out are of “beyond our realm se ofnsory understanding” experience” (Holyoak and and“out Thagard of our 1999 realm, p. 10).of Inunderstanding” other words, through(Holyoak analogical and Thagard thinking, 1999, p. we 10). can In understand other words, the through unknown, analogical the unfamiliar, thinking, and we thecan new.understand the unknown, the unfamiliar, and the new. Thus, metaphorsmetaphors are are literary literary devices, devices, linguistic linguistic expressions, expressions, and tools forand human tools understanding. for human Theyunderstanding. are also techniques They are usedalso techniques within the creativeused with process.in the Glass,creative with process. its unique Glass, blend with ofits physical unique propertiesblend of physical as well asproperties intangible as qualities well as andintangib variousle qualities functions and in society, various is functions well-suited infor society, use as is a visual metaphor material to help describe the new. In the case of “Glass in Translation”, the virtual instruments were the new and unknown.

Arts 2019, 8, 19 14 of 20

5.2.1. DescribingArts 2019, 8, x New FOR PEER Virtual REVIEW Instrument Sounds 14 of 20

Thewell-suited lead visual for designer use as a visual requested metaphor that material the sound to help designers describe the and new. composer In the case each of “Glass choose in one of their ownTranslation”, new virtual the instrument virtual instruments sounds were and the describe new and them unknown. to her in writing. She requested that they use the visual language and terms common to both disciplines, such as colour, shape, texture, and 5.2.1. Describing New Virtual Instrument Sounds weight. They responded, not with synesthetic reactions6, but with thoughtful, considered responses about their newThe lead sounds. visual Thedesigner lead requested composer that offered the sound the designers following and composer description each ofchoose his newone of sound their as: own new virtual instrument sounds and describe them to her in writing. She requested that they use the Funnelvisual or language cone shape, and terms wide common base ... to bothperfectly disciplines, round, such perhaps as colour, slightly shape, texture, distorted and weight. or static-y Theyin 6 texture,responded, but solid not with and synesthetic strong. Comes reactions up, tobut a with hollow thoughtful, and thin consider verticaled responses pipe shape about on their top, new clean sounds. The lead composer offered the following description of his new sound as: and free of distortion/static. The color also moves from dark at the base to light on top. Dark blue/greenFunnel on or up cone to shape, something wide base more … transparentperfectly round, and perhaps light. slightly A small distorted sweeping or static-y gesture of in texture, but solid and strong. Comes up to a hollow and thin vertical pipe shape on top, color runs through for one moment in the middle ... not parallel nor perpendicular, but at clean and free of distortion/static. The color also moves from dark at the base to light on an angle,top. as Dark if being blue/green sucked on towards up to something the top but more in transparent a circular motionand light.... Aalmost small sweeping like a reverse whirlpoolgesture or black of color hole. runs (Faleris through 2016 for) one moment in the middle … not parallel nor perpendicular, but at an angle, as if being sucked towards the top but in a circular motion He had used… several almost like of thea reverse source whirlpool sounds or recorded black hole. from (Faleris the 2016) glassmaking to create his new virtual instrument, which he titled “Makers Whirlpool”. The composer and sound designers provided no He had used several of the source sounds recorded from the glassmaking to create his new virtual other explanationinstrument, to which the lead he titled designer “Makers and Whirlpool”. no other discussionThe composer of theand newsound sounds designers took provided place. no The lead designerother spent explanation time listening to the to lead each desi soundgner and with no headphones other discussion when of the she new had sounds the written took place. descriptions The to accompanyleadthem. designer Then, spent using timethe listening composer’s to each and sound sound with designers’ headphones written when she descriptions had the written like the one above, alongdescriptions with her to ownaccompany experience them. listening Then, using to the the new composer’s sounds, theand visual sound designer designers’ created written sketches for new glassdescriptions pieces like (Figure the one 14 above,). She along took thesewith her drawings, own experience along listening with the to words the new and sounds, sounds, the to the visual designer created sketches for new glass pieces (Figure 14). She took these drawings, along glass technicians/artist team. Together, they listened to the audio ﬁles, discussed the written words as with the words and sounds, to the glass technicians/artist team. Together, they listened to the audio well as thefiles, sounds discussed they the were written hearing, words and as well debated as the how sounds to visualize they were each hearing, in glass. and debated Then they how proposed to and consideredvisualize various each in glass. techniques Then they and proposed approaches and considered for realizing various the sketches techniques in and glass, approaches producing for a plan for each piecerealizing before the sketches the studio in glass, work producing began. Fora plan each for of each the piece three before sounds, the studio they made work began. two attempts For in glass. Togethereach of the these three six sounds, pieces they along made with two the attempts three sounds in glass. comprise Together these “Glass six in pieces Translation” along with (Figure the 13). The glassthree pieces sounds have comprise the same “Glass titles in asTr whatanslation” the composer(Figure 13). andThe glass sound pieces designers have the offered. same titles as what the composer and sound designers offered.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 14. Sketches based on new sounds and their written descriptions: (a) Computer generated sketch for “Italian Nightmares” sound (Image: Lisa Naas 2016); (b) pencil/pen sketch for “Makers6 Discussion Whirlpool” among (Image: the team Lisa members Naas 2016);confirmed and this (c) after computer the project. generated sketch for “Ewok Machine”

(Image: Lisa Naas 2016).

6 Discussion among the team members conﬁrmed this after the project. Arts 2019, 8, 19 15 of 20

5.2.2. Challenges and Team Responses Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20 Two issues—communication and traditional studio practices—repeatedly challenged the team throughout theFigure work 14. onSketches the Makersbased on new Marks sounds project, and their and written specifically descriptions: during(a) Computer the generated making of “Glass in sketch for “Italian Nightmares” sound (Image: Lisa Naas 2016); (b) pencil/pen sketch for “Makers Translation”. WorkingWhirlpool” (Image: across Lisa disciplines Naas 2016); and required (c) computer all membersgenerated sketch to have for “Ewok basic Machine” knowledge (Image: of terms and language usedLisa by Naas the 2016). group members. This was necessary in order to have productive conversations about the various processes and techniques they were using. It meant withholding assumptions 5.2.2. Challenges and Team Responses and asking many questions. Additionally, as the team was working with new works in sound, Two issues—communication and traditional studio practices—repeatedly challenged the team the lead designer felt that it was important for the team to push away from the traditional within the throughout the work on the Makers Marks project, and specifically during the making of “Glass in glassmakingTranslation”. process. Working This was across new, disciplines frustrating, required and excitingall members for to everyone have basic involved. knowledge Most of terms interestingly, the team instinctivelyand language turnedused by to the simile group and members. metaphor This inwas the necessary conversation in order to to respond have productive to the challenges. “Italian Nightmares”conversations offers about athe good various example processes and and some techniques evidence they towere support using. It how meant the withholding team used analogy assumptions and asking many questions. Additionally, as the team was working with new works in as a tool withinsound, thethe lead process designer of creatingfelt that itthis was work.important for the team to push away from the traditional Soundwithin designer the glassmaking Alessandro process. Mastroianni’s This was new, description frustrating, and of exciting his new for virtualeveryone instrument, involved. Most which was based on theinterestingly, sourceaudio the team of instinctively wet newspaper turned to shaping simile and hot metaphor glass, in was the conversation the most difficult to respond for to the visual team to understand:the challenges. “Italian Nightmares” offers a good example and some evidence to support how the team used analogy as a tool within the process of creating this work. a very heavySound looking designer sound. Alessandro Despite Mastroianni’s its weight descri though,ption of his it doesn’t new virtua havel instrument, any snapping which was quality, based on the source audio of wet newspaper shaping hot glass, was the most difficult for the visual tellingteam me to that understand: [it] is, again, rather smooth than sharp. The color of this one is a transparent, dark grey. (Mastroianni 2016) a very heavy looking sound. Despite its weight though, it doesn’t have any snapping The lack of aquality, definitive telling shape me that was [it] is, the again, most rather puzzling smooth than to work sharp. outThe technically.color of this one After is a listening to transparent, dark grey. (Mastroianni 2016) the sound and reading the composer’s description, the lead designer’s immediate response was to associate withThe lack the of words a definitive “roiling”, shape was “patterns the most puzzling in boiling”, to work and out “bubblestechnically. fromAfter listening boiling”. to the She tried to sound and reading the composer’s description, the lead designer’s immediate response was to explain thisassociate and her with sketch the words (Figure “roiling”, 14a) “patterns to the glassin boiling”, technicians and “bubbles assisting from boiling”. her. She She asked tried to for creative input on howexplain to trapthis and air her within sketch the (Figure piece. 14a) The to the lead gla glassss technicians technician assisting suggested her. She usingasked for a reactioncreative between bicarbonateinput soda on andhow theto trap hot air glass within by sprinklingthe piece. The the lead bicarbonate glass technician soda suggested over the using piece a toreaction create bubbles as they pulledbetween and bicarbonate twisted thesoda material and the hot into glass a sculpture by sprinkling (Figure the bicarbonate 15). soda over the piece to create bubbles as they pulled and twisted the material into a sculpture (Figure 15).

Figure 15.FigureTwo of15. the Two glass of the team glass team members members pulling pulling and and twistingtwisting the the hot hot glass glass during during the first the attempt ﬁrst attempt to to make “Italian Nightmares” (Image: David Faleris 2016). make “Italian Nightmares” (Image: David Faleris 2016).

The result, however (shown in Figure 16), was missing an intangible quality that the team all heard in the sound, but struggled to articulate. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, 19 The result, however (shown in Figure 16), was missing an intangible quality that the team all 16 of 20 heard in the sound, but struggled to articulate.

Figure 16.FigureThe 16. glass The output glass output from from the first the first attempt attempt at creatingat creating “Italian “Italian Nightmares” Nightmares” (Image: (Image: Lisa Lisa Naas Naas 2016). 2016). Prior to the next attempt at making “Italian Nightmares”, the visual team returned to talking Prior to the next attempt at making “Italian Nightmares”, the visual team returned to talking about whatabout they what had they heard hadin heard the soundin the andsound what and thatwhat might that might look likelook inlike glass, in glass, while while still maintainingstill the visualsmaintaining and idea the of visuals the sound and idea offered of the by sound the composeroffered by the words. composer The words. lead designerThe lead designer conferred with the leadconferred composer with about the lead the soundcomposer for about his fresh the soun earsd andfor his words. fresh ears He saidand words. that Mastroianni’s He said that sound “soundedMastroianni’s like a growing sound virus “sounded or an like infection”. a growing His viru similes or an gave infection”. the lead His designer simile gave what the she lead needed to redesigndesigner the glass what piece she andneeded attempt to redesign the work the glass again piece with and the attempt technicians. the work She again pushed with hardthe for the technicians. She pushed hard for the group to break out of what was traditional with the glass and to group toexploit break the out material of what in the was same traditional way they withwere tryi theng glass to exploit and the to exploitlanguage the and material the source in sounds. the same way they wereThe trying composer to exploitand lead thedesigner language discussed and this the idea source of “virus” sounds. and “infection” The composer with the andtechnicians. lead designer discussedThe this designer idea explained of “virus” that, and in glass, “infection” she thought with the the composer’s technicians. “virus” Thewas akin designer to her explained“roiling that, in glass,bubbles” she thought overtaking the composer’s the glass. “virus” was akin to her “roiling bubbles” overtaking the glass. On the second setup, the glass team used an inordinate amount of bicarbonate soda to create On the second setup, the glass team used an inordinate amount of bicarbonate soda to create the the piece (Figure 17) and actually ended up contaminating the whole furnace pot of glass, making piece (Figurefor major 17) clean-up and actually work at ended the end. up In contaminating traditional glassmaking, the whole bubbles furnace are often pot ofconsidered glass, making as for major clean-upflaws. In workfact, a single at the bubble end. is In sometimes traditional enough glassmaking, to ruin a work. bubbles Glassmaking are often has a deep considered tradition as ﬂaws. In fact, ain single Italy and bubble given is that sometimes the virtual enough instrument to ruinwas entitled a work. “Italian Glassmaking Nightmares”, has it a fit deep the project tradition to in Italy and givenreconsider that the the virtual bubbles instrument that are often was seen entitled as a “Italianglassmaker’s Nightmares”, nightmare. “Italian it ﬁt the Nightmares project to II” reconsider highlights the bubble growth on the smooth body of the traditionally formed glass vessel (see Figure the bubbles that are often seen as a glassmaker’s nightmare. “Italian Nightmares II” highlights the 18) and is a play on words with the title. bubble growth on the smooth body of the traditionally formed glass vessel (see Figure 18) and is a play on words with the title. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

Figure 17.FigureMaking 17. Making “Italian “Italian Nightmares Nightmares II”; II”; thethe white colour colour is the is thebicarbonate bicarbonate soda on soda the glass on the glass (Image: David Faleris 2016). (Image: David Faleris 2016).

Figure 18. Portrait of “Italian Nightmares II” (Image: Alex Hall 2016).

6. In Exhibition While the Makers Marks project offers images of “Sounding Glass” and “Glass in Translation”, the physical object outputs are best viewed and handled in person for a full experience. During the period of the Ingenious Award, the team collaborated with a number of organisations in a variety of settings to engage the local, diverse Edinburgh community with the project and the engineering behind the artworks (see Footnotes 4 and 5, on pages 9 and 13 respectively). At all of the events, lead team members were available to discuss the project and the engineering with the visitors. Niche conferences like the 2016 North Lands Creative Glass Conference and the 2017 Research Through Design Conference drew specific audiences that were primarily academic in nature and geared toward specific themes, but other opportunities allowed more general access. Prospective arts students, parents, and staff toured the hotshop with the Makers Marks objects in exhibition at

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

Arts 2019, 8, 19 17 of 20 Figure 17. Making “Italian Nightmares II”; the white colour is the bicarbonate soda on the glass (Image: David Faleris 2016).

Figure 18. Portrait of “Italian Nightmares II” (Image: Alex Hall 2016). Figure 18. Portrait of “Italian Nightmares II” (Image: Alex Hall 2016). 6. In Exhibition 6. In Exhibition While the Makers Marks project offers images of “Sounding Glass” and “Glass in Translation”, the physical object outputs are best viewed and handled in person for a full experience. During the While the Makersperiod of Marks the Ingenious project Award, offers the team images collaborated of with “Sounding a number of organisations Glass” in and a variety “Glass of in Translation”, settings to engage the local, diverse Edinburgh community with the project and the engineering the physical objectbehind outputs the artworks are best(see Footnotes viewed 4 and and 5, on pages handled 9 and 13 inrespectively). person At for all of a the full events, experience. lead During the period of the Ingeniousteam members Award, were theavailable team to discuss collaborated the project and with the engineering a number with ofthe organisationsvisitors. Niche in a variety of conferences like the 2016 North Lands Creative Glass Conference and the 2017 Research Through settings to engageDesign the local,Conference diverse drew specific Edinburgh audiences that community were primarily academic with thein nature project and geared and the engineering toward specific themes, but other opportunities allowed more general access. Prospective arts behind the artworksstudents, (see parents, Footnotes and staff 4toured and the 5, hotshop on pages with the 9Makers and Marks 13 respectively). objects in exhibition Atat all of the events, lead team members were available to discuss the project and the engineering with the visitors. Niche conferences like the 2016 North Lands Creative Glass Conference and the 2017 Research Through Design Conference drew speciﬁc audiences that were primarily academic in nature and geared toward speciﬁc themes, but other opportunities allowed more general access. Prospective arts students, parents, and staff toured the hotshop with the Makers Marks objects in exhibition at Edinburgh College of Art during its Open Days. At Summerhall, a networking event (Figure 19) in collaboration with the EdinburghArts 2019 Hacklab, 8, x FOR PEER and REVIEW the ASCUS Art & Science organisation enticed18 of a20 crowd of all ages with artists, engineers,Edinburgh academics, College of Art during scientists, its Open Days. students, At Summerhall, and a hobbyists networking event in (Figure the audience. 19) in The events collaboration with the Edinburgh Hacklab and the ASCUS Art & Science organisation enticed a allowed the teamcrowd members of all ages to presentwith artists, the engineers, work acad fromemics, differing scientists, students, perspectives and hobbyists based in the on the audience or theme, while highlightingaudience. The various events allowed aspects the team of members the multi-pronged to present the work project. from differing perspectives based on the audience or theme, while highlighting various aspects of the multi-pronged project.

Figure 19. Audience members interacting with the Makers Marks objects in exhibition at the Figure 19. AudienceNovember members 2016 Summerhall interacting networking with event, the Makerspresented by Marks the Makers objects Marksin Collaborative exhibition in at the November 2016 Summerhall networkingconjunction with Edinburgh event, presentedHacklab and AS byCUS the Art & Makers Science (Image: Marks Alex CollaborativeHall 2016). in conjunction with

Edinburgh Hacklab7. Conclusions and ASCUS Art & Science (Image: Alex Hall 2016). The interdisciplinary, collaborative project pushed the investigation, preservation, and dissemination of the sounds of the glassmaking process further than has been done before, as evidenced in the project’s open access sound collection, processed with Binaural Auditory Scene Re-Synthesis, and the resulting virtual instruments and “Makers Suite” music composition. By sharing the sounds through digital technologies and art objects, the project reaches out to a wide, public audience. “Sounding Glass” and “Glass in Translation” convey the audio engineering and the engineers’ visions as part of the glass art works, engaging the audience with the making process. Removing the sounds so completely from the glass workshop setting, and using them in these other forms, enabled study of them as sound data and sound art material in their own right. The project elevated the sounds, initially only the remains and exertion of the glass making process, and placed them before the team and audiences to consider as more than just makers marks. Throughout the project, the team questioned the nature of glass, sound, blurred design roles, and the marks of the makers process. Instinctively and purposefully, the team members used metaphor as a communication bridge, both in language and in visuals. This allowed the group to articulate the new and the unfamiliar and to relay artistic processes to those outside of the disciplines. In retrospect, the team members realized that they used many more analogies in the

Arts 2019, 8, 19 18 of 20

7. Conclusions The interdisciplinary, collaborative project pushed the investigation, preservation, and dissemination of the sounds of the glassmaking process further than has been done before, as evidenced in the project’s open access sound collection, processed with Binaural Auditory Scene Re-Synthesis, and the resulting virtual instruments and “Makers Suite” music composition. By sharing the sounds through digital technologies and art objects, the project reaches out to a wide, public audience. “Sounding Glass” and “Glass in Translation” convey the audio engineering and the engineers’ visions as part of the glass art works, engaging the audience with the making process. Removing the sounds so completely from the glass workshop setting, and using them in these other forms, enabled study of them as sound data and sound art material in their own right. The project elevated the sounds, initially only the remains and exertion of the glass making process, and placed them before the team and audiences to consider as more than just makers marks. Throughout the project, the team questioned the nature of glass, sound, blurred design roles, and the marks of the makers process. Instinctively and purposefully, the team members used metaphor as a communication bridge, both in language and in visuals. This allowed the group to articulate the new and the unfamiliar and to relay artistic processes to those outside of the disciplines. In retrospect, the team members realized that they used many more analogies in the work than had even been intended. This early work suggests that metaphor could be a useful tool for interdisciplinary, collaborative work in the studio to relay processes and visions, as well as to communicate across ﬁelds. More research, such as a design protocol study, is needed to document pointedly the use of metaphor, similes, and signs of analogical thinking during art and design, interdisciplinary, collaborative projects. Perhaps there are patterns of use that indicate the potential for working groups to succeed at their aims or to innovate. The glass workshops also proved to be an ideal staging ground for the interdisciplinary work of the project. The versatile, ubiquitous material of glass, with its various physical properties and states, enabled associations across disciplines. Through these associations, commonalities among the team members were identiﬁed, which facilitated communication and ultimately, collaboration.

Author Contributions: Funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft: L.N.; software: D.F.; conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, visualization, writing—review and editing: L.N. and D.F. Funding: This research was funded by a 2015 Ingenious Award from the Royal Academy of Engineering, grant number ING1415\9\228. Acknowledgments: The Makers Marks Collaborative is a multi-disciplinary team comprised of artists and engineers of various stripes, some of whom played numerous roles throughout the project work for the audio library, “Sounding Glass”, and “Glass in Translation”. For the purposes of this article, specific names were not attached to various subprojects and tasks, so as to highlight the roles rather than the individuals. Thank you to the entire team for your contributions to the project, and for your creativity, your patience, and your willingness to experiment! We would like to acknowledge each team member here: Lisa Naas (conceptualization, funding acquisition & management, lead visual designer), David Faleris (lead composer/sound designer/computer programmer), Marcin Pietruszewski (lead recording/audio engineer), Al Bennett (lead electrical engineer/computer programmer), Ingrid Phillips (glass technician and artist), Alan Horsley (glass artist), Alkistis Terzi (photographer, videographer), Meg McGregor (glass assistant), Alessandro Mastroianni (sound designer/engineer), Antriksh Bali (sound designer/engineer), Xueran Chen (sound designer/engineer), Laura Reed (glass assistant), Zuzana Michlerová (sound designer/engineer), George Karpasitis (sound designer/engineer), Alberto Vásquez (sound designer/engineer), Cara Clay (sound designer/engineer), and Alex Hall (photographer). We are most grateful to the Royal Academy of Engineering for the Ingenious Award which enabled the project and public engagement with the engineering of our artworks. We would like to thank the Edinburgh College of Art for its generous hosting and support of this project, with special thanks to the Glass Department. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Arts 2019, 8, 19 19 of 20

References

Apel, Willi. 1972. Glass Harmonica. In Harvard Dictionary of Music. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 347–48. Casacci, Max, and Daniele Mana. 2018. Glasstress. Available online: https://badpandarecords.bandcamp.com/ album/max-casacci-daniele-mana-glasstress (accessed on 29 November 2018). Corning Museum of Glass. 2002a. About Us. Available online: https://www.cmog.org/about (accessed on 14 January 2019). Corning Museum of Glass. 2002b. Live Streaming. Available online: https://www.cmog.org/programs/live- streaming (accessed on 14 January 2019). Cray, Wesley D. 2014. Conceptual Art, Ideas, and Ontology. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72: 235–45. [CrossRef] DuoGlass. 2018. GlassDuo: Crystal Clear Music. Available online: http://glassduo.com/en/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). Faleris, David. 2016. Makers Whirlpool. e-mail to Lisa Naas. June 10. Feeney, Shawn. 2016. The Common Language of Visual and Musical Art. Available online: http://www. shawnfeeney.com/2016/03/the-common-language-of-visual-and-musical-art/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). Fertig, Carrie. 2018. Torcher Chamber Arkestra. Available online: http://www.carriefertig.com/torcher-chamber- arkestra (accessed on 29 November 2018). Fondazione Berengo. 2018. Glass Fever. Contemporary Art in Glass. Available online: http://www. fondazioneberengo.org/ (accessed on 5 March 2016). Goldie, Peter, and Elisabeth Schellekens. 2009. Philosophy and Conceptual Art. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Greary, James. 2011. I Is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How It Shapes the Way We See the World. London and New York: HarperCollins e-books. Holyoak, Keith, and Paul Thagard. 1999. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Woburn: The MIT Press. Jerram, Luke. 2019. Keep on Turning. Available online: https://www.lukejerram.com/keep-on-turning/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). Jones, Andy. 2017. The Essential Guide to Virtual Instruments. Available online: https://www.musictech.net/ 2017/08/essential-guide-virtual-instruments/ (accessed on 12 January 2019). Klein, Dan. 2001. Artists in Glass. London: Mitchell Beazley. Klein, Dan, and Ward Lloyd. 1991. The History of Glass. London: Black Cat. Levitin, Daniel. 2007. This Is Your Brain on Music. London: Atlantic Books. Makers Marks. 2016. In Conversation with Makers Marks. Available online: http://www.inconcertwithglass. com/single-post/2019/01/29/In-Conversation-with-Makers-Marks/ (accessed on 29 January 2019). Mastroianni, Alessandro. 2016. Italian Nightmares e-mail to Lisa Naas via David Faleris. April 13. Museo del Vetro. 2019. The Museum. Available online: http://museovetro.visitmuve.it/en/il-museo/museum/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). National Glass Centre. 2013. Free Glass Blowing Demos. Available online: http://www.nationalglasscentre.com/ visit/onyourvisit/freeglassblowingdemonstrations/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). O’Connor, Erin. 2007. Hot Glass: The Caloriﬁc imagination of glassblowing in practice. In Practicing Cultures. Edited by Craig Calhoun and Richard Sennett. London and New York: Routledge. Royal Academy of Engineering. 2019. Ingenious: Public Engagement Awards. Available online: https://www. raeng.org.uk/grants-and-prizes/ingenious-grant/ (accessed on 29 January 2019). Schellekens, Elisabeth. 2009. The Aesthetic Value of Ideas. In Philosophy and Conceptual Art. Edited by Peter Goldie and Elisabeth Schellekens. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Soniccouture. 2018. Glass/Works. Available online: http://www.soniccouture.com/en/products/28-rare-and- experimental/g14-glass-works/ (accessed on 29 November 2018). The Franklin Institute. 2018. Franklin’s Glass Armonica. Available online: https://www.ﬁ.edu/history-resources/ franklins-glass-armonica (accessed on 25 April 2018). Tiso, Robert. 2018. Robert Tiso. Available online: http://www.roberttiso.com/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). Arts 2019, 8, 19 20 of 20

United Studio Effects. 2012. Sound Effects, Vol. 7. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Glass-Blower- Flame-Sounds-Igniting/dp/B008MIJS14 (accessed on 13 January 2019). Vávra, Jaroslav Raimund. 1954. 5000 Years of Glass-Making: The History of Glass. Prague: Artia. Venuti, Matt. 2018. The Hang Instrument. Available online: http://www.mattvenuti.com/hang-instrument/ (accessed on 14 January 2019). Vienna Symphonic Library. 2018. Glass Instruments. Available online: https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Elements/ Glass_instruments (accessed on 29 November 2018). Zwicky, Jan. 2013. What is Lyric Philosophy? An Introduction. Common Knowledge. Available online: http://commonknowledge.dukejournals.org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/content/20/1/14.full.pdf+html (accessed on 5 March 2016).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).