Reframing 3: musings
I’ve been spending more time contemplating what I am seeking in my interactions with live electronics, recognising that this is not simply how I physically interface with technology. Below are some related/unrelated thoughts, phrases and questions that have stemmed from recent reading and thinking – it doesn’t lead anywhere in particular but is something of an attempt at ordering thoughts.
-
Previous research into performer-system interaction has focussed solely on the sonic response of the system, ignoring other aspects of human communication. When we play with other musicians, we do not just interact sonically, but also through physical gestures and eye contact, which Corness refers to as “social contact” (2008, p. 265). Rebelo elaborates: “the action of performing a musical instrument is multimodal, which should make one resist the temptation of assigning specific roles and functions to each sensory mode” (2006, p. 28).
Furthermore, the relationship between performer and instrument can be understood as a “multimodal participatory space” where both are discrete entities, each with their own dynamics, expression, sociality and ecology (Rebelo, 2006, p. 28). Does thinking in this way help to overcome questions surrounding the balance of mastery and discovery over repeated performances with digital systems?
-
How discrete can these entities really be in my practice where, creating software environments and technological assemblages, I am also an instrument maker? When I build systems, my roles as maker and performer are cyclic and iterative:
-
And what of communication between agents (human, machine) in performance? According to Corness, this is “an inter-subjective phenomenon where understanding is agreed upon by the agents involved in the moment” (Corness, 2008, p. 265); “an act of ‘boundary negotiation’” (Lockford and Pelias, 2004, p. 433) that requires a sense of trust to be established (Corness, 2008, p. 266). This becomes a supportive relationship when the agents’ actions both support and affect the others (Ibid.).
Corness continues to explain that intuition and intention play a large part in governing our interactions, and that prediction is as fundamental as reaction in these exchanges (2008, p. 266). Emmerson echoes this by saying that digital systems should have a consistent response, but should also be sensitive enough that subtle gestures from the performer can be detected and used (2000). Consistency aids prediction…perhaps I am asking the system for too much?
Like Hayes, I am using my instrument (the Classical guitar) as an interface into the digital world because of my familiarity with its “touch-based sensitivity” (2011, p. 73). I wrote more about the physicality of playing the Classical guitar here. I would like to find a way to retain some of this in the digital world if at all possible, but haptics and vibrotactile feedback do not currently feel pertinent to this research.
References
Corness, G. (2008) ‘Performer Model: Towards a Framework for Interactive Performance Based on Perceived Intention’, in. 2008 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Genova, pp. 265–268.
Emmerson, S. (ed.) (2000) ‘“Losing Touch?”: The Human Performer and Electronics’, in Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 194–216.
Hayes, L. (2011) ‘Vibrotactile Feedback-Assisted Performance’, in. International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Oslo.
Lockford, L. and Pelias, R.J. (2004) ‘Bodily Poeticizing in Theatrical Improvisation: A Typology of Performative Knowledge’, Theatre Topics, 14(2), pp. 431–443.
Rebelo, P. (2006) ‘Haptic sensation and instrumental transgression’, Contemporary Music Review, 25(1/2), pp. 27–35.