Computational Arts-Based Research and Theory: Journal 1
Choreographies with Software
For obvious reasons, when encountering the concept of choreography, I think of dance.
I think that the choice of this word is interesting because of the implications that arise when juxtaposing the art of dance with the usage of computers.
Interactions between computers and humans are often seen as rigid encounters, utilitarian at their core. To see these processes described with the implied elegance and beauty of dance is something that opens up a lot of opportunities in how we conceive these interactions in the first place.
This is important, because by changing how we conceive interactions, we can find new outcomes. We can also find new routes that lead to familiar outcomes, which in turn reveal new ways of dealing with problems of expression.
However, is this word choice simply a rhetorical mechanism employed by a writer? Is this more than someone overanalyzing something as straightforward as interacting with a computer (or any tool)?
I don't know, and honestly, I don't have an answer yet.
As interesting and tempting as it may be to think of the interaction between a computer and a human as a deep experience, can we really assert that it is without the risk of relying on anecdotal experiences and heavily opinionated perspectives?
What quantitative mechanisms can we use to determine if computers are inherently different tools from any others we've had before? Are quantitative methods appropriate for measuring this in the first place?
I don't think that anecdotal experiences and heavily opinionated perspectives are bad, negative, or in-constructive, by the way. I'm just wondering how much credibility they have when we consider how widespread computers are. Anecdotal experiences could just reflect the experiences of a select few, so we can't rely on them to understand a larger phenomenon.
I often fear that we think our technologies are exceptional when maybe they're not, not necessarily, and not entirely. I don't mean to downplay the large effect of modern technology – it certainly has had a huge effect in how modern life is lived. It is ubiquitous and pervasive. But sometimes I can't help myself but perceive a certain degree of technological self-involvement when reading and thinking about these issues – which is not to say that I want to disqualify the notion of discussing them in the first place, because I don't.
Choreographies are usually dictated by a choreographer – a composer that is removed from the real-time interaction between the performers.
I think that this is also the case between software and users. I am a musician, and I often use a piece of software called Ableton Live. The engineers for this program, people I've never met, have decided what features they think are important for a musician/sound-maker to have.
It seems to me that the last sentence of the previous paragraph generates a lot of feelings in the free software/open source software communities, especially considering the readings “A fish can't judge the water” and “Beyond Photoshop with Code”. Something along the lines of “Why should Ableton(or whatever other company) get to decide what you think is important to do with your work!?!”
I think that's a rather infantile and somewhat impertinent response to being presented an array of tools. You have the choice of using them as you please. You have the choice to create what you want with it. And ultimately, you have the choice of not using it when you don't want to, or when it doesn't fit what you need for a project.
I often balance an array of audio tools depending on my needs. Sometimes Ableton Live is useless at things I want to do, so I use Logic Pro. Sometimes Logic Pro is useless at things I want to do, so I use Pro Tools. It's a balancing act. But what if none of these tools match what I want?
That's, to me, where the amazing world of programming comes in. I have no use for reinventing the wheel when other tools do an amazing job of what I need. But when my life and my necessities are so specific, I want to be able to develop the tools that can adjust to my specific setting and desire.
I don't really feel limited by other tools. I do feel that the tools have limits, but I don't feel limited by them. The limits of the tools are a place where I'm artistically very interested in, and where I feel somewhat comfortable. There's something oddly comforting about being at the edge of where everything about a system might go totally wrong and break down.
What I find appealing about computational arts is not the “liberation” from “consumer tools” that “control” the way I think. What I find appealing is the language of computational thought – I believe that it's aesthetic effect and flexibility is profound. I'm not looking to replace my old tools. I'm looking to express something I can't with them, so I'm looking in a new place.
I think that every single tool that can be used has an implied bias, and to a certain extent, you have to agree with its bias to use it.
A hammer has the pre-conceived notion that concentrating a lot of force in a small space with relatively little effort is a good thing, that it's preferable and ideal. A guitar has the pre-conceived notion that playing pitches in the ways that its frets and string arrangement allow is desirable. Computers have the pre-conceived notion that achieving certain results is desirable. However, with computers (if we can program them), we have the liberty to decide what those notions are.
Software as culture
I do think that, despite what I wrote in the previous section, there is a lot to be said about the cultural effects that certain technologies can have.
In music, an obvious example to me is the creation of the sequencer. The sequencer allows musicians to write musical phrases without having to play them. It's perfectly feasible to write musical ideas that are impossible to perform by humans, but are easily reproducible by a sequencer. A lot of styles of electronic music have been born out of this.
To what extent is the result of those pieces of music a collaboration between not only the composers involved in a track, but also between the instrument makers? Are instrument makers part of a musical composition?
I believe that to an extent they are. This relates to the notion of limits I was discussing previously. I wouldn't write the music I'm writing if I wasn't using a particular set of tools. The tools I'm using are definitely going to color the end result.
But is this bad? I don't think so. Not necessarilly.
I like working in musical ensembles because I get to react how other people think. No one thinks exactly like me, so working with other people forces me to encounter ways of thought that make me react.
I believe that by working with software, you're often led into a position where you're in a form of ensemble with other people. And different combinations of people end up giving very different results.
However, this raises the question: if a given company's product is being used by millions of people, are they directly responsible for all of the music their users create? Does this result in the homogenization of music?
I believe this is a very deep topic, one I can't really do justice to right now. It involves considerations on the nature of tools and culture that I need to do additional research on.
A brief note on Borges
I brought in two books from Latin American authors to class – “El Aleph”, by Jorge Luis Borges, and “Rayuela”, by Julio Cortázar. I ended up just presenting Borges, as it felt more relevant, but I feel Cortázar's work also has a degree of computational thought behind it.
To a degree, I chose these books because I have very nostalgic tendencies and they remind me, despite being from a completely different country from me, of my general cultural area. They're Latin American, so am I, so I feel a degree of connection to them.
However, going beyond my sentimentality, I think that Borges is a very interesting writer. I feel like he had the capacity to very elegantly encapsulate complicated notions and present them in an easily accesible way.
This is something I strive to as an artist, and I find it somewhat amazing that he was doing it without access to technology that would make these points and concepts self-evident. I wonder what that means for artists of this generation.
An interesting thing about Borges is that he has already inspired computational arts projects in the past – namely, the website https://libraryofbabel.info/, which is inspired by his short story of the same name.
In this website, users can look up strings of text and find the book in which they were randomly generated in.