Recently we have thinking about the way that the material we are sonifying is presented in physical space, and how this presentation reflects the material and allows the affect of scale to be experienced.
Alternatives we are currently imagining: a very large indoor space, with a single small object in the centre of the room (some kind of sound field speaker). This setup allows the audience member to walk through the sound as if in a field: the metaphors of scale-space allowed to co-exist within the sonic experience.
Our reflections on, and experiments with cultural meanings of transduction and enclosure as visual icons that cradle constantly re-forming sound objects continue.
The size of the Duomo in Florence, the people who move amongst it, the sound of their voices under the dome.
Choices of meaningful attribution of sound to data remain the topic of discussion between us. (Yes, in this collaboration there is the tension and collaboration btn MF and Th as artists, and between us and SG as the scientist- an extra layer of collaborative complexity.)
Pitch relations in music have both horizontal and vertical relationships. Timbral considerations engage these relationships in a much denser timescale. Rhythmic- attack/decay/silence- relationships are perhaps the freest from acquired cultural associations. ( We do not come from the major key equates to happiness school of thought.)
What sound material/kernel makes the most sense to attribute to the data?
MF and TH
Filed under Thoughts on process |