DIGF5002 2017-02-24

Designing listening (‘choreographies of attention’) rather than designing sound.

Diagram of the hardware components of the user’s system:
• Pair of headphones wired up with a binaural microphone at each ear.
• Enables the user to monitor both external auditory environment while listening to prerecorded audio (music, podcasts, etc.)
• A cell phone app mixes the different signals automatically according to the detected presence and shape factor of objects that enter the user’s detection system.

DIGF5002 2017-02-16

Mind mapping sonification variables for experimentation.

For next meeting — we will assemble a various of small moving objects to document on video for purposes of experimentation with sonification through computer vision.

▪ tracking and estimating movement speed and trajectories of the objects,
▪ How to identify important (visual, mass, texture, weight) properties of a static object
▪ Identify #1 but while object is moving.

DIGF5002 2017-02-09

Track moving object as it moves towards the path of object detection system of visually impaired user. In which the listening sister boundaries once the moving object enters in to that within that boundary the listeners system will detect it and translate both its shape and its proximity to sound.

Fingers revived

Performance: Finger Reunited from richard windeyer on Vimeo.

Cameron McKittrick (theremin, laptop) & Richard Windeyer (drums, laptop) at ‘Wired’ (Laurier Music Festival, Wilfrid Laurier University, January 31, 2016)

Last January (2016), Cameron McKittrick and I revived our digital performance project ‘Finger’ for an alumni reunion concert at the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty of Music. Once upon a time, Cam and I were both composition students there. More recently, we both worked there as sessional instructors in composition and music technology — which is essentially how the Finger project came to be.

In this performance, Cam’s instrument consists of theremin-controlled piano samples which are activated and organized through MaxMSP software. My drum kit uses acoustic MIDI trigger data to manipulate a granular synthesis engine containing a vocal improvisation recorded by longtime friend, collaborator, and spoken word artist, Angela Rawlings.

Although our improvisation was brief, it seemed to succeed as a performance — or so it seemed based on post-concert conversations with audience members. This was (I suspect), partially due the fact that we intentionally chose NOT to focus our attention on the screens of our laptops, something which has become a persistent condition of so many laptop-based performances. Instead, we focused on anticipating, interpreting and reacting (sonically) to each other through our respective physical (especially facial) gestures.

It seems to me that one primary consequence of any performance that employs computers is that it renders far too much of the actual ‘work’ of performance invisible to the viewer. Our solution here, simply put, was to transfer the perception of that work to the interplay of two human bodies struggling to formulate — and then exchange — informational cues in realtime.

Much more to be explored here (I think, I hope).


The difference between science and art — a potentially useful explanation

IMG_1666 (1)
Perspectival photo of the spiral staircase at the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences, Toronto, Canada 

This explanation comes from a recent conversation between artist/musician Brian Eno and architect Bjarke Ingels (see partial transcription below). It’s an explanation that I’ve been contemplating while devising possible experiments in the field of information/data art and performance (i.e., my dissertation research). Eno’s explanation seems (to me) to be not only insightful, but also approachable and — perhaps more importantly — useful. Not only do I think this because my own research is forcing me to oscillate between the sciences and the arts at ever-increasing degrees of intensity, but because so many artists (myself included), tend to do a poor job of explaining why everyone else should care about what they (we) do. 


“Why don’t we all do science? Science obviously produces results — we all live with those results; they’re all around us. Science is practical; makes good sense, and it’s very inspiring too, it’s not unimaginative or anything like that; it’s not dull. So I started thinking about this question of what do artists do and why do we want artists? Why do we want art? […] I started to think that the difference between science and art was that science was really interested in trying to find out how this world works. If you ask any scientist what they’re doing they’ll say, “Well I’m just fascinated by spectacles, so I just really want to see how they worked,” or “I’m just fascinated by water; I really want to understand water.” If you ask artists what they’re doing they generally tell you to ‘bugger off’ or they don’t really have an answer to the question. They say, “I just like doing it.” So you say, “But why do you like doing it?” And what you realize is that what artists like is to build new worlds of some kind; unfamiliar worlds. They want to build other possible realities and in doing that understand something about this reality; reflect back on this reality […] That was really where things like Music For Airports came from. They came from projecting a future that I hoped to create by building some of the objects that belonged in that future. I thought, if you put the objects there, even though the rest of the future didn’t exist, it would start to grow around those objects…. And it seemed to work.” 

Nevertheless, I remain curious as to other possible distinctions between what science and art do for us. I’m especially interested in explanations which emphasize the complimentary nature of science and art rather than those that continue to promote opposition or divisiveness.    

You can view the entire conversation below. Eno’s explanation begins at 2min:58sec in.

Brian Eno & Bjarke Ingels — ‘On Instruments Of Change’ (Heartland Festival, 2016)

Selected links:

Chalk line futures

Talking about dissertation cycles


The next two+ years of (my) academic life, cast in chalk (courtesy of Dr. Peter Coppin, OCADU).


On interdisciplinary studies in knowledge media and the performing arts

Here is a brief profile interview I did for the University of Toronto’s Knowledge Media Design Institute, one which I think (hopefully) begins to explain my research focus as a doctoral student with the KMD collaborative program.

What department are you part of and what is your research focus?

I come from the Centre for Drama, Theatre and Performance Studies (CDTPS) with a background in music technology and sound design for theatre and performance. My research focuses on how our ability to capture and process certain forms of data (i.e. ’big data’, biodata, etc.), are transforming how artists create immersive and/or participatory theatre and performative experiences.

Why did you decide to join the KMD collaborative program?

I’ve always tried to position myself at the intersections between disciplines. Working this way is not easy, but it’s always rewarding and ripe with opportunities for innovation and cross-fertilization. I first heard about the KMD/CDTPS collaborative program through Dr. Bruce Barton (a former CDTPS faculty member now at the University of Calgary), just after it had been established. Being one of the first KMD/CDTPS students was a little strange at first — in my KMD classes, I usually ended up being referred to as ‘the drama guy’, which I think was actually a blessing in disguise. It motivated me to clarify (for myself) and to articulate (to others) what I thought the most important connections between knowledge media design and theatre/performance are — or should be — and how these disciplines might benefit most from collaborative cross-pollination.

How has KMD impacted your research?

The prerequisite KMD courses helped me develop a solid grounding in the contexts and practices surrounding ‘big data’ and ‘open data’ while providing me with an opportunity to begin researching the methods and practices of contemporary artists specializing in data visualization and/or sonification. KMDI’s Human Centred Design course was particularly valuable in expanding my understanding of the methods and practices employed to cultivate meaningful user participation in the design of products, services or systems and — by extension — theatre/performance experiences.

How is your research related to the KMD collaborative program?

People ask me what contemporary knowledge media design has in common with the traditions of theatre and performance. It’s a great question and while I am not a specialist in the theatre of Ancient Greece, scholars such as Derrick de Kerckhove[1] (McLuhan Program, University of Toronto) and others have attempted to demonstrate how a primary function of the ancient Greek theatre was to provide the predominantly illiterate spectator with models for processing, integrating and communicating their perceptions and experiences of the world as knowledge. Theatre has always served as a form of knowledge media. More specifically though, I tend to view theatre as a kind of ‘reality simulator’ — a place where complex or chaotic situations or scenarios can be conceived, enacted and rehearsed and new personas, behaviours and perceptual models can be prototyped and tested, all in a comparatively safe and controlled environment.

How did you find the transition to KMD and how compatible is it with the goals of collaboration and innovation within Performing Arts studies?

I found it was relatively easy. Sound design and interactive technologies have always been essential components of my work in theatre and performance. Yet, I’ve always been equally interested in exploring how this particular design knowledge could be transferred to other fields, such as the design of sounds produced through a user’s interaction with a physical object, system or environment.

What words of advice would you give a future Theatre and Performance Arts Student who thinks about pursuing further studies with KMD?

If you focus on the places where KMD and theatre/performance overlap and intersect meaningfully, opportunities for cross-pollination and trans-disciplinary insight can be discovered and explored. Part of this involves thinking beyond the more popular definitions of ‘theatre’ (i.e., plays, musicals, dramatic texts, etc.) until you begin to see how most people engage some form of ‘performance’ as part of their daily lives.

[1] for example,see the article Theatre as Information-Processing in Western Cultures by Derrick de Kerckhove

Punchcard rewind: a contemporary reconstruction of Udo Kasemets’ Tt

On reviving a cybernetic audience-controlled, audio-visual performance piece. A tribute to Buckminster Fuller, Marshall McLuhan, and John Cage

Tt by Udo Kasemets (1919-2014)

A cybernetic audience-controlled, audio-visual performance piece. A tribute to Buckminster Fuller, Marshall McLuhan, and John Cage

Performed by David Schotzko, Richard Windeyer , and Adam Tindale on March 27, 2015 at the Robert Gill Theatre (Centre for Drama Theatre & Performance Studies) as part of the Opening Up the Space Festival (T. Nikki Cesare Schotzko, David Schotzko and Dennis Patrick, producers). Realized in Max/MSP/Jitter with an iOS data entry template for TouchOSC (https://github.com/drart/Kasemets)

Udo was a pivotal figure in the evolution of the electronic arts and contemporary music communities in Toronto. He was a composer of chamber works, orchestral and electroacoustic works. He was a conductor, a concert presenter, and a teacher to young artists — most notably at the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD). For a time, he was also the music critic for the Toronto Daily Star. Like so many people in the 1960’s, his work became heavily influenced by the ideas of John Cage, Buckminster Fuller, and Marshall McLuhan. He maintained correspondences with all three of them and continued to compose music — often employing — like Cage — the I Ching, and exploring the application of fractals in algorithmic composition. With Udo’s passing just last year, it seemed fitting to remount his own ‘tribute’ piece.

According to Kasemets’ instructions, “aural and visual presentations and illuminations (by means of speech, recordings, slide projections, films, sculptural constructions, etc.) of words ideas and images of B. Fuller, M. McLuhan and J. Cage,”1 are manipulated according to a live audience poll which is then processed by a computer. The first and only performances of Tt occurred at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute on the weekend of March 9 and 10 in 1968 — part of a weekend extravaganza of ‘environmental compositions’ entitled SightSoundSystem that capped off the Kasemets-curated ‘Festival of Art and Technology’2. As an aside, I should also point out that this was the same festival at which John Cage and Marcel Duchamp rather famously performed their ‘chess game’ piece Reunion. Despite computational challenges and harsh reviews by the Toronto Daily Star’s William Littler and The Globe and Mail’s John Kraglund, Tt may be regarded as a curiously ambitious local landmark in the pre-history of ‘crowd-sourced’ and participatory performance situations now made possible through 21st C computational advancement.

In a forthcoming lecture-demonstration at the 2015 Toronto International Electroacoustic Symposium in Toronto, Adam and I will delve into the data capture (punchcards) and processing methods (manual data entry), performance material curation and historical contexts researched and developed for this digital reconstruction of Tt.

Special thanks to Kasemets scholar, Dr. Jeremy Strachan.


%d bloggers like this: