Generative sound

_16 _17

GENERATIVE SOUND ART AS POEITIC POETRY FOR ANINFORMATION SOCIETY

Alice Eldridge

Centre for Creative Research into Sound Arts PracticeUniversity of the Arts, London, UK

ABSTRACT

Recent conversation in both the sonic and generativeart communities envision a practice which engages withboth formal and cultural or conceptual concerns. At thesame time there is a sense amongst practitioners in thegenerative arts community that there is room to developthe methods of the practice. This paper sketches a simple,practical approach to generative sound art which drawsfrom philosophical observations of the emerging infor-mation society and implements a sound-based generativescheme as a simple, literal illustration of a practice whichlooks outward to society and inward at the materials ofits practice. It is suggested that a digital sound art of thisnature has potential as a discourse for contemporary so-ciety, a poietic playground for coming to terms with theimplications and challenges of the information age.

1. INTRODUCTION

Seth Kim-Cohens recent vision of a conceptual sonic artwhich engages both the non-cochlear and the cochlear,and the constituting trace of each in the other. [15], p.xxi.resonates loudly with an ongoing debate in the generativearts. Ten years ago, Florian Cramer surveyed the land-scape of software arts practice and drew a rather gloomydistinction between a culturalist software art and for-malist generative art [4]. Gloomy, because he saw theconcerns and activities of his contemporaries as fallinginto one or other camp with little cross-talk and felt thatneither approach, in isolation, held promise. This analyseswas pessimistically reiterated by Troels Degn Johansson,who presented it as the no future of software art) [14],and again in Inke Arns distinction: generative art = soft-ware art. [1]. Mitchell Whitelaw offered a more positiveresponse, suggesting that the future of software art prac-tice1 could lie in a fusion of formalism and culturalism[21], p.1. Analyses in both fields imply a missed oppor-tunity and envision a contemporary praxis which looksboth inward (at its materials and form) and outward (atthe world and its meaning), toward the creation of workswhich speak to both the senses and the intellect.

1This phrase is taken inclusively, to refer to software art, genera-tive art and algorithmic composition, i.e. all algorithmic software-basedpractices which are concerned with making software which makes some-thing.

These debates in both the sonic and software arts in-spire considerations of how practice at the intersect, a gen-erative sound art, might approach this vision. This paperoffers a simple, practical illustration. Section 1.1 outlinesWhitelaws system story. The exposition of this criticaldevice is an attempt to open up the formal, aesthetic con-cerns of the generative art community to a broader cul-tural context, so bridging Cramers formalist-culturalistdivide. Section 1.2 examines current issues in generativeart practice. It is suggested that some of the problems cur-rently identified in the field may be a symptom of import-ing models, methods and their attendant perspectives fromthe engineering sciences and that the field could benefitfrom more exploratory, experimental approach to designand implementation of generative systems. Inspiration foran alternative is drawn from Luciano Floridis observa-tions of the impact of digital technologies in the broaderinformation society. Section 2 introduces a simple classof generative system inspired by Floridis concept of onto-logical friction. This is presented as possible alternative tothe standard practice of algorithmic composition. Ratherthan sonifying the numerical outputs of a formally imple-mented algorithm, the generative process is constituted inthe sound in which it is also manifest. In section 3, it isproposed that the poietic and creative nature of computermusic, and generative sound art in particular, has uniquepotential as a discourse for coming to terms with the chal-lenges of contemporary society.

1.1. System stories and critical generativity

The potential for software art, in general, to represent andinterrogate the cultural complexities of contemporary so-ciety has been suggested in the past (e.g. [17]). In adopt-ing formal, complex systems as a basic generative tool,software art has the potential to convey not only an imageof cultural situations, but more powerfully, to present asystemic abstraction, or model. Abstract generative art,suggests Whitelaw performs cosmogeny: it brings fortha whole artificial world, saying here is my world and hereis how it works. [21], p.5. In collapsing the concept nota-tion and execution, such works are in quite a unique posi-tion to illustrate, explore and critique how it works. InKim-Cohens propositional terms, we appear to be tooledup and ready to talk about.

Whitelaw observes, however, that this potential remains

largely unfulfilled. Surveying a number of visual artworkshe suggests that where complex systems are deployed, thepredominant interest is in their formal, generative poten-tial, an inward-looking, utilitarian and non-reflexive con-cern with the form of the emergent structure. He sug-gests that what is needed is a critical approach to genera-tive art, in order to open up these formal systems to dis-cussion and critique, drawing out relations between theirinternal workings and the outside world. Whereas previ-ous discourse focused on the materials and process (e.g.[4]), Whitelaw argues that a culturally-relevant critiquemust necessarily focus on the formal systems themselves,rather than their sensory outputs.

Drawing from the way in which Artificial Life simu-lations have been critiqued in the humanities (e.g. [12],[13]), Whitelaw develops the system story as a critical de-vice. For Whitelaw the system about which the story istold very specifically refers to the abstract, formal struc-tures (the objects, relations, actions and processes of theformal system), as distinct from either the language-specifictext in which it is implemented, or its material (sonic,visual, sculptural etc.) manifestation. The system storythen, is a retelling of the narrative of the entities, rela-tions, ontologies and processual structures of the softwaresystem. The system story can be used to engage with theformal object and draw out its implications. It providesa means to connect - critically, prospectively, specula-tively - entities and relations within the system, with en-tities and relations outside it. [21], p.3. The cultural cri-tique afforded by system story is the bridge he builds inan attempt to span Cramers formalist-culturalist divide.

Whitelaws critique ultimately aims to opens the doorto a more sophisticated, experimental or critical approachto the practice of generative art. Rather than simply mod-elling the world as we know it, we can begin to envisageways of realising Manovichs vision of a generative artwhich provides not just images of, but imaginations of thesocial, cultural, personal, material etc. systems in whichwe live. Viewed as a discourse which communicates sys-tem stories, generative art has the potential to tinker crit-ically and explore the world in which we live.

1.2. Beyond Algorithmic ready-mades

This feeling that there are as yet unexplored opportuni-ties for contemporary sonic and software practices is alsoevident amongst practitioners in the generative art com-munity. It has recently been suggested that it is time todevelop our generative art methods: Generative art mustdo more than simply implement formal systems importedfrom the sciences.2 [7], p.18.

Mathematics and the biological sciences offer a richcompendium of algorithmic toys for software artists. Mo-tivation for the adoption of a particular model is often

2This call, as the authors note, can be seen as an echo of Fentonswarning that art should not become the handmaiden of science. Fen-ton was responding to Jack Burnhams enthusiasm for technological,process-based, autonomous art in the 1960s, work that shares many at-tributes with contemporary generative art.

couched in terms of the relevance of properties of its par-ticular emergent structure or behavioural dynamics to aspecific compositional or interactive task: Xenakis ex-perimentations with stochastic granular techniques reflecthis interest in the (auto-) creation of higher order sonori-ties (e.g. Analogique A et B, 1958-59); Blackwells adop-tion of swarm algorithms [3] reflects his interest in theself-organisational forces at play in group improvisation,etc. Under this approach, a formal model is implementedand the numerical outputs are then mapped to particu-lar sonic parameters. The design of musically meaning-ful mappings from numerical output to relevant param-eters is sometimes natural but often far from intuitive.The challenge is framed as that of establishing meaningfulcorrespondences between the underlying principles of themodel and the appearance and behaviour of the artwork,and is raising its head again with the new generation ofardent swarm enthusiasts [2]. To call for new approachesto generative design is not to admonish the use of existingalgorithms for specific compositional tasks, but to encour-age a more experimental approach in order to expand therepertoire and scope of the practice.

Dorin et al recognise the pedagogical value of thesereadymade systems (particle systems, cellular automata,physical simulations etc.) but express concern that thesystems operate as black boxes whose internal oper-ations are obscure to the artists and designers who usethem [7], p.18. The recent population explosion in artist-programmers has created lively communities around en-vironments such as Max-MSP and Processing. The opensource ethos of these communities coupled with the porta-bility of code, means that algorithms, encapsulated in li-braries, are shared amongst practitioners more readily thanever before. We no longer have to implement algorithmsfrom scratch. On the one hand this expedites develop-ment, obviating countless wheel-reinventions, reducing la-borious debugging of personal implementations of text-book algorithms and so affording more time to focus onthe more creative side of development - how these algo-rithms are mapped to specific visual or sonic parameters,for example. The flip side is that in not going through theprocess of reinventing the wheel, programmers have noneed to get to grips with the workings of the wheel. Thisarguably reduces the scope for creative tinkering and withit, the chances of inventing new methods.

Similar cries for new directions are heard within theEvolutionary Arts (EA) community. Galanter writes thatAfter a great deal of initial promise and enthusiasm, evo-lutionary art seems to have hit a premature and disappoint-ing plateau. [10], p.216. The field, suggests Galanter, issuffering from a conceptual malaise. The malaise is seento stem in part from two perennial problems: the designof genetic representations which afford boundless innova-tion and the specification of fitness functions able to drivevast populations over many generations. These technicalissues accompany what Galanter sees as a deeper theo-retical incoherence. The specification of a fixed fitnessfunction implies a bottom-up approach: a particular class

_16 _17

GENERATIVE SOUND ART AS POEITIC POETRY FOR ANINFORMATION SOCIETY

Alice Eldridge

Centre for Creative Research into Sound Arts PracticeUniversity of the Arts, London, UK

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Recent conversation in both the sonic and generativeart communities envision a practice which engages withboth formal and cultural or conceptual concerns. At thesame time there is a sense amongst practitioners in thegenerative arts community that there is room to developthe methods of the practice. This paper sketches a simple,practical approach to generative sound art which drawsfrom philosophical observations of the emerging infor-mation society and implements a sound-based generativescheme as a simple, literal illustration of a practice whichlooks outward to society and inward at the materials ofits practice. It is suggested that a digital sound art of thisnature has potential as a discourse for contemporary so-ciety, a poietic playground for coming to terms with theimplications and challenges of the information age.

1. INTRODUCTION

Seth Kim-Cohens recent vision of a conceptual sonic artwhich engages both the non-cochlear and the cochlear,and the constituting trace of each in the other. [15], p.xxi.resonates loudly with an ongoing debate in the generativearts. Ten years ago, Florian Cramer surveyed the land-scape of software arts practice and drew a rather gloomydistinction between a culturalist software art and for-malist generative art [4]. Gloomy, because he saw theconcerns and activities of his contemporaries as fallinginto one or other camp with little cross-talk and felt thatneither approach, in isolation, held promise. This analyseswas pessimistically reiterated by Troels Degn Johansson,who presented it as the no future of software art) [14],and again in Inke Arns distinction: generative art = soft-ware art. [1]. Mitchell Whitelaw offered a more positiveresponse, suggesting that the future of software art prac-tice1 could lie in a fusion of formalism and culturalism[21], p.1. Analyses in both fields imply a missed oppor-tunity and envision a contemporary praxis which looksboth inward (at its materials and form) and outward (atthe world and its meaning), toward the creation of workswhich speak to both the senses and the intellect.

1This phrase is taken inclusively, to refer to software art, genera-tive art and algorithmic composition, i.e. all algorithmic software-basedpractices which are concerned with making software which makes some-thing.

These debates in both the sonic and software arts in-spire considerations of how practice at the intersect, a gen-erative sound art, might approach this vision. This paperoffers a simple, practical illustration. Section 1.1 outlinesWhitelaws system story. The exposition of this criticaldevice is an attempt to open up the formal, aesthetic con-cerns of the generative art community to a broader cul-tural context, so bridging Cramers formalist-culturalistdivide. Section 1.2 examines current issues in generativeart practice. It is suggested that some of the problems cur-rently identified in the field may be a symptom of import-ing models, methods and their attendant perspectives fromthe engineering sciences and that the field could benefitfrom more exploratory, experimental approach to designand implementation of generative systems. Inspiration foran alternative is drawn from Luciano Floridis observa-tions of the impact of digital technologies in the broaderinformation society. Section 2 introduces a simple classof generative system inspired by Floridis concept of onto-logical friction. This is presented as possible alternative tothe standard practice of algorithmic composition. Ratherthan sonifying the numerical outputs of a formally imple-mented algorithm, the generative process is constituted inthe sound in which it is also manifest. In section 3, it isproposed that the poietic and creative nature of computermusic, and generative sound art in particular, has uniquepotential as a discourse for coming to terms with the chal-lenges of contemporary society.

1.1. System stories and critical generativity

The potential for software art, in general, to represent andinterrogate the cultural complexities of contemporary so-ciety has been suggested in the past (e.g. [17]). In adopt-ing formal, complex systems as a basic generative tool,software art has the potential to convey not only an imageof cultural situations, but more powerfully, to present asystemic abstraction, or model. Abstract generative art,suggests Whitelaw performs cosmogeny: it brings fortha whole artificial world, saying here is my world and hereis how it works. [21], p.5. In collapsing the concept nota-tion and execution, such works are in quite a unique posi-tion to illustrate, explore and critique how it works. InKim-Cohens propositional terms, we appear to be tooledup and ready to talk about.

Whitelaw observes, however, that this potential remains

largely unfulfilled. Surveying a number of visual artworkshe suggests that where complex systems are deployed, thepredominant interest is in their formal, generative poten-tial, an inward-looking, utilitarian and non-reflexive con-cern with the form of the emergent structure. He sug-gests that what is needed is a critical approach to genera-tive art, in order to open up these formal systems to dis-cussion and critique, drawing out relations between theirinternal workings and the outside world. Whereas previ-ous discourse focused on the materials and process (e.g.[4]), Whitelaw argues that a culturally-relevant critiquemust necessarily focus on the formal systems themselves,rather than their sensory outputs.

Drawing from the way in which Artificial Life simu-lations have been critiqued in the humanities (e.g. [12],[13]), Whitelaw develops the system story as a critical de-vice. For Whitelaw the system about which the story istold very specifically refers to the abstract, formal struc-tures (the objects, relations, actions and processes of theformal system), as distinct from either the language-specifictext in which it is implemented, or its material (sonic,visual, sculptural etc.) manifestation. The system storythen, is a retelling of the narrative of the entities, rela-tions, ontologies and processual structures of the softwaresystem. The system story can be used to engage with theformal object and draw out its implications. It providesa means to connect - critically, prospectively, specula-tively - entities and relations within the system, with en-tities and relations outside it. [21], p.3. The cultural cri-tique afforded by system story is the bridge he builds inan attempt to span Cramers formalist-culturalist divide.

Whitelaws critique ultimately aims to opens the doorto a more sophisticated, experimental or critical approachto the practice of generative art. Rather than simply mod-elling the world as we know it, we can begin to envisageways of realising Manovichs vision of a generative artwhich provides not just images of, but imaginations of thesocial, cultural, personal, material etc. systems in whichwe live. Viewed as a discourse which communicates sys-tem stories, generative art has the potential to tinker crit-ically and explore the world in which we live.

1.2. Beyond Algorithmic ready-mades

This feeling that there are as yet unexplored opportuni-ties for contemporary sonic and software practices is alsoevident amongst practitioners in the generative art com-munity. It has recently been suggested that it is time todevelop our generative art methods: Generative art mustdo more than simply implement formal systems importedfrom the sciences.2 [7], p.18.

Mathematics and the biological sciences offer a richcompendium of algorithmic toys for software artists. Mo-tivation for the adoption of a particular model is often

2This call, as the authors note, can be seen as an echo of Fentonswarning that art should not become the handmaiden of science. Fen-ton was responding to Jack Burnhams enthusiasm for technological,process-based, autonomous art in the 1960s, work that shares many at-tributes with contemporary generative art.

couched in terms of the relevance of properties of its par-ticular emergent structure or behavioural dynamics to aspecific compositional or interactive task: Xenakis ex-perimentations with stochastic granular techniques reflecthis interest in the (auto-) creation of higher order sonori-ties (e.g. Analogique A et B, 1958-59); Blackwells adop-tion of swarm algorithms [3] reflects his interest in theself-organisational forces at play in group improvisation,etc. Under this approach, a formal model is implementedand the numerical outputs are then mapped to particu-lar sonic parameters. The design of musically meaning-ful mappings from numerical output to relevant param-eters is sometimes natural but often far from intuitive.The challenge is framed as that of establishing meaningfulcorrespondences between the underlying principles of themodel and the appearance and behaviour of the artwork,and is raising its head again with the new generation ofardent swarm enthusiasts [2]. To call for new approachesto generative design is not to admonish the use of existingalgorithms for specific compositional tasks, but to encour-age a more experimental approach in order to expand therepertoire and scope of the practice.

Dorin et al recognise the pedagogical value of thesereadymade systems (particle systems, cellular automata,physical simulations etc.) but express concern that thesystems operate as black boxes whose internal oper-ations are obscure to the artists and designers who usethem [7], p.18. The recent population explosion in artist-programmers has created lively communities around en-vironments such as Max-MSP and Processing. The opensource ethos of these communities coupled with the porta-bility of code, means that algorithms, encapsulated in li-braries, are shared amongst practitioners more readily thanever before. We no longer have to implement algorithmsfrom scratch. On the one hand this expedites develop-ment, obviating countless wheel-reinventions, reducing la-borious debugging of personal implementations of text-book algorithms and so affording more time to focus onthe more creative side of development - how these algo-rithms are mapped to specific visual or sonic parameters,for example. The flip side is that in not going through theprocess of reinventing the wheel, programmers have noneed to get to grips with the workings of the wheel. Thisarguably reduces the scope for creative tinkering and withit, the chances of inventing new methods.

Similar cries for new directions are heard within theEvolutionary Arts (EA) community. Galanter writes thatAfter a great deal of initial promise and enthusiasm, evo-lutionary art seems to have hit a premature and disappoint-ing plateau. [10], p.216. The field, suggests Galanter, issuffering from a conceptual malaise. The malaise is seento stem in part from two perennial problems: the designof genetic representations which afford boundless innova-tion and the specification of fitness functions able to drivevast populations over many generations. These technicalissues accompany what Galanter sees as a deeper theo-retical incoherence. The specification of a fixed fitnessfunction implies a bottom-up approach: a particular class

_18 _19

of form or behaviour is preconceived and the genetic op-erators designed in order to reach that goal. Whilst theEA community looks to the boundless creativity of naturefor inspiration, natural evolution is not teleological. Evo-lutionary pressure is neither fixed nor determined fromAbove, but arises from interactions between the agent andthe components of the ecosystem in which it is situated.Galanter prescribes a dedication to an aesthetic of truthto process and dynamism [10], p.213, as the remedy, sug-gesting that what is essential to generative art is not anyparticular form of a particular material, but the harnessingof process.

Process is undoubtedly central to generative art, butthe endemic malaise identified by Galanter can also beseen as a symptom of a more fundamental incoherence:the mismatch between the problem-solving engineeringdomain in which artificial evolution methods were devel-oped and the art-making context in which they are now ap-plied. The adoption of evolutionary techniques as searchmethods can carry with it the problem solving approach ofthe engineering sciences in which they originate. Such anapproach is apposite to design applications (such as auto-mated synthesis e.g. [22]), but arguably conflicts with art-making in which there may not be a specific problem towhich a formally specifiable solution exists. The malaisewhich Galanter identifies can be seen as another sign thatthere is room for a new approach to generative art, one thatmoves beyond borrowing algorithms and methods fromthe sciences and begins to tinker with bespoke approaches.

Kim-Cohen talks of an as-yet unestablished categoryof practice in which the work of art could be conceived ofas the simultaneous creation of a message and the lan-guage of the messages transmission [15], p.xxiii-xxiv.The central proposition of this paper is that in focusingsolely on the formal process in generative art and disre-garding the sensory material (in this case sound) in whichit is manifest is to miss a trick: that one way to engageboth the ear and the intellect may be to develop methodsfrom the ground up in which the process and its sensorymanifestation are mutually constituted.

The remainder of this paper aims to provide a sim-ple illustration of one way this approach could be devel-oped. Rather than lifting algorithms from the sciences,inspiration is taken from a recent philosophical analysesof contemporary society. A specific systemic character-istic which is identified motivates the design of a simplegenerative scheme in which sound is inextricably boundup in the generative process.

1.3. Inspiration the infosphere

Information philosopher Luciano Floridi has written ex-tensively on the impact of Information and communica-tions technologies (ICTs) on contemporary society, high-lighting both the metaphysical and practical, ethical im-plications. The ubiquity of ICTs in many areas of society,he claims, is radically changing not only our interactionswith the world, but our essential views of who we are and

the world in which we live. He presents this as the FourthScientific Revolution3.

In expounding his position, he coins the term info-sphere [9] to denote the environment constituted by allinformational entities (analogue and digital), as distinctfrom the biosphere - the region of the planet which sup-ports life. This is us, our laptops, libraries, digital in-struments, museums, phones, intelligent cars, their prop-erties, interactions, processes and mutual relations. Hisclaim is that the ubiquity of ICTs is fundamentally trans-forming the intrinsic nature of social structures and arte-facts and our relationship with them. Another neologism,re-ontologising, is coined to refer to this process. Withthese concepts in hand, Floridi claims that ICTs are re-ontologising the very nature of (and hence what we meanby) the infosphere [9], p.2, and that these changes willbring about profound transformations in and correspond-ing challenges for information societies in the near future.

The most obvious and significant changes are the tran-sition from analogue to digital data and the exponentialgrowth of our digital realm. Floridi suggests that the radi-cal extent of the impact of ICTs is largely due to the fun-damental convergence between digital resources and dig-ital tools([9], p.4). The information technologies avail-able (e.g. software, databases, communication channelsand protocols etc.) are increasingly similar to, and so fullycompatible with, their objects (their data and the conversa-tions and interactions they support). This was one of Tur-ings most consequential intuitions: in the re-ontologisedinfosphere, there is no longer any substantial differencebetween the processor and the processed, so the digitaldeals effortlessly and seamlessly with the digital. (ibid,p.4). For the information society at large, the convergingnature of processors and their objects increases the easewith which information can flow in a given environment.Floridi uses the terms ontological friction as a measureof the amount of work and effort required to process andtransmit information in a given environment.

An analogy can be drawn between the processors andtheir objects in the infosphere and the algorithmic pro-cesses and the materials (digital audio and graphic rep-resentations etc.) in which they are manifest in the dig-ital generative arts. All are digital in nature, but whilstthe ontologies of the former align, in common practice,there is a fundamental rift between the latter, evidenced bythe perennial head-scratching over the design of aesthet-ically meaningful mapping and representation schemes.The analogue of ontological friction in this context is thedisjunction between the use of formal algorithms and thesonic material they are intended to organise. The prospectthat decreasing ontological friction could increase gener-ative potential is interesting.

3The first three being: Copernican (we are not immobile at the centreof the universe), Darwinian, (we are not distinct from the rest of the ani-mal kingdom) and Freudian (we are very far from being purely rationalminds entirely transparent to ourselves).

2. SELF-OBSERVING SYSTEMS

Self-observing Systems is an ongoing project which ex-plores generative sound art methods. The concern in thecurrent study is the construction of a simple generativemechanism which exhibits an ontological alignment com-parable to that between processor and processed asseen in Infosphere at large, a system which relates a storyabout the world, through the material of sound. This is ap-proached by implementing a simple system in which thegenerative process is constituted in the sound.

2.1. A self-determined sample player

The illustrative mechanism is based on a sample player.This familiar unit generator, which is the digital homo-logue of various physical music players, represents theprocessors in Floridis analysis and caricatures the im-pact of the de-physicalisation of devices more broadly.The sample player is furnished with a listening module.Rather than playing in a linear fashion, its playback rate(and direction) are determined by features of the audio itplays.4

2.1.1. Implementation

The system was built in beads5 and comprises a variablerate sample player, listener module and short audio fileas shown schematically in Fig.1. The sample is playedat rate, R. When an onset is detected, absolute playbackrate is updated as a function of the most dominant fre-quency in the current audio buffer and its direction re-versed. Noise is added by means of a probabilistic updateregime. The probability is inversely proportional to thecurrent rate. This balances the effects of playback rate:at slower speeds, significant audio features will be furtherapart in time (and less prominent). See Fig.2 for details.

The listener module is an onset detector comprisingthe following analysis chain: short frame segmenter, fastfourier transform, peak detector and spectral differencemeasure. The peak detector follows the algorithm de-scribed in [6]. In this implementation the audio file is notoverwritten.

A resynthesis module is included for decoration (itplays no functional role in the process), highlighting themoments of change. When an onset is detected, an os-cillator bank is triggered, creating a complex chord. Thefrequency, duration and amplitude of each of N oscilla-tors is set according to the frequency and strength of thecorresponding first N partials in the current buffer. In thisimplementation, N = 10.

4The basic design principle adopted here is therefore one of circu-lar causality. This is nothing new. The approach lies at the heart of thecybernetic enterprise [20]. Its generative and interactive potential wasexplored by early electronic pioneers (consider e.g. Gordon MummasCybersonic Horn piece, Hornpipe (1967) and it has experienced some-what of a revival in recent years, following Di Scipios Audible Eco-systemic Interface series [5].

5beads is a Java library for real time audio: www.beadsproject.net

sample player listener

DSP

controlsignal

Figure 1. Self-determined sample player schematic

f o r c u r r e n t o u t p u t b u f f e rl ook f o r o n s e t si f o n s e t occu r s , w i th p r o b a b i l i t y , P

e x t r a c t p a r t i a l s F1 . . . nupda t e R a c c o r d i n g t o F1p l ay b u f f e r a t r a t e , 1 R new

e l s e p l ay b u f f e r a t r a t e , R

Rnew =1

Fp1 rK (1)

Where Fp1 is the frequency of the 1st partial, rK is a con-stant and R can assume negative values. P= f ( 1R )

Figure 2. Pseudo code and rate update equation

2.2. Sonic examples

The system is intentionally playful and lively and this isreflected in the output. A range of samples containingvarying degrees of harmonic and gestural complexity wereexplored. The examples given here include a dripping tap,Sprids, a field recording of blackbird song, Balckbrids anda live example with pizzicato cello, Spwang.

What we hear is an engaging and active explorationof the given sonic material with an apparent intentional-ity that belies the simplicity of the generative process. InSprids, the harmonic simplicity of the original drip devel-ops a coherent harmonic progression as each drip triggersa change in rate according to its harmonic content, alter-ing the pitch of the subsequent drips. Over time, the longterm structure (albeit musically trivial) unfolds accordingto the spectral content of individual sound events.

In Balckbrids there is a basic (and comic) expositionof the gestures contained in the original recording. Thisgestural exposition would be effective in a live interac-tive setting. Spwang provides a short excerpt from initialexperiments with improvised cello. In a performance set-ting, the self-directed exploration of material has the po-tential for a lively trading of gestures between instrumen-tal performer and digital components of a performancesystem, an aesthetic design principle which guides manyelectro-acoustic improvisation systems (e.g. [19]).

2.3. Other self-observing systems

The principle of self-observing systems is open ended. Afurther hypothetical example is outlined below.

_18 _19

of form or behaviour is preconceived and the genetic op-erators designed in order to reach that goal. Whilst theEA community looks to the boundless creativity of naturefor inspiration, natural evolution is not teleological. Evo-lutionary pressure is neither fixed nor determined fromAbove, but arises from interactions between the agent andthe components of the ecosystem in which it is situated.Galanter prescribes a dedication to an aesthetic of truthto process and dynamism [10], p.213, as the remedy, sug-gesting that what is essential to generative art is not anyparticular form of a particular material, but the harnessingof process.

Process is undoubtedly central to generative art, butthe endemic malaise identified by Galanter can also beseen as a symptom of a more fundamental incoherence:the mismatch between the problem-solving engineeringdomain in which artificial evolution methods were devel-oped and the art-making context in which they are now ap-plied. The adoption of evolutionary techniques as searchmethods can carry with it the problem solving approach ofthe engineering sciences in which they originate. Such anapproach is apposite to design applications (such as auto-mated synthesis e.g. [22]), but arguably conflicts with art-making in which there may not be a specific problem towhich a formally specifiable solution exists. The malaisewhich Galanter identifies can be seen as another sign thatthere is room for a new approach to generative art, one thatmoves beyond borrowing algorithms and methods fromthe sciences and begins to tinker with bespoke approaches.

Kim-Cohen talks of an as-yet unestablished categoryof practice in which the work of art could be conceived ofas the simultaneous creation of a message and the lan-guage of the messages transmission [15], p.xxiii-xxiv.The central proposition of this paper is that in focusingsolely on the formal process in generative art and disre-garding the sensory material (in this case sound) in whichit is manifest is to miss a trick: that one way to engageboth the ear and the intellect may be to develop methodsfrom the ground up in which the process and its sensorymanifestation are mutually constituted.

The remainder of this paper aims to provide a sim-ple illustration of one way this approach could be devel-oped. Rather than lifting algorithms from the sciences,inspiration is taken from a recent philosophical analysesof contemporary society. A specific systemic character-istic which is identified motivates the design of a simplegenerative scheme in which sound is inextricably boundup in the generative process.

1.3. Inspiration the infosphere

Information philosopher Luciano Floridi has written ex-tensively on the impact of Information and communica-tions technologies (ICTs) on contemporary society, high-lighting both the metaphysical and practical, ethical im-plications. The ubiquity of ICTs in many areas of society,he claims, is radically changing not only our interactionswith the world, but our essential views of who we are and

the world in which we live. He presents this as the FourthScientific Revolution3.

In expounding his position, he coins the term info-sphere [9] to denote the environment constituted by allinformational entities (analogue and digital), as distinctfrom the biosphere - the region of the planet which sup-ports life. This is us, our laptops, libraries, digital in-struments, museums, phones, intelligent cars, their prop-erties, interactions, processes and mutual relations. Hisclaim is that the ubiquity of ICTs is fundamentally trans-forming the intrinsic nature of social structures and arte-facts and our relationship with them. Another neologism,re-ontologising, is coined to refer to this process. Withthese concepts in hand, Floridi claims that ICTs are re-ontologising the very nature of (and hence what we meanby) the infosphere [9], p.2, and that these changes willbring about profound transformations in and correspond-ing challenges for information societies in the near future.

The most obvious and significant changes are the tran-sition from analogue to digital data and the exponentialgrowth of our digital realm. Floridi suggests that the radi-cal extent of the impact of ICTs is largely due to the fun-damental convergence between digital resources and dig-ital tools([9], p.4). The information technologies avail-able (e.g. software, databases, communication channelsand protocols etc.) are increasingly similar to, and so fullycompatible with, their objects (their data and the conversa-tions and interactions they support). This was one of Tur-ings most consequential intuitions: in the re-ontologisedinfosphere, there is no longer any substantial differencebetween the processor and the processed, so the digitaldeals effortlessly and seamlessly with the digital. (ibid,p.4). For the information society at large, the convergingnature of processors and their objects increases the easewith which information can flow in a given environment.Floridi uses the terms ontological friction as a measureof the amount of work and effort required to process andtransmit information in a given environment.

An analogy can be drawn between the processors andtheir objects in the infosphere and the algorithmic pro-cesses and the materials (digital audio and graphic rep-resentations etc.) in which they are manifest in the dig-ital generative arts. All are digital in nature, but whilstthe ontologies of the former align, in common practice,there is a fundamental rift between the latter, evidenced bythe perennial head-scratching over the design of aesthet-ically meaningful mapping and representation schemes.The analogue of ontological friction in this context is thedisjunction between the use of formal algorithms and thesonic material they are intended to organise. The prospectthat decreasing ontological friction could increase gener-ative potential is interesting.

3The first three being: Copernican (we are not immobile at the centreof the universe), Darwinian, (we are not distinct from the rest of the ani-mal kingdom) and Freudian (we are very far from being purely rationalminds entirely transparent to ourselves).

2. SELF-OBSERVING SYSTEMS

Self-observing Systems is an ongoing project which ex-plores generative sound art methods. The concern in thecurrent study is the construction of a simple generativemechanism which exhibits an ontological alignment com-parable to that between processor and processed asseen in Infosphere at large, a system which relates a storyabout the world, through the material of sound. This is ap-proached by implementing a simple system in which thegenerative process is constituted in the sound.

2.1. A self-determined sample player

The illustrative mechanism is based on a sample player.This familiar unit generator, which is the digital homo-logue of various physical music players, represents theprocessors in Floridis analysis and caricatures the im-pact of the de-physicalisation of devices more broadly.The sample player is furnished with a listening module.Rather than playing in a linear fashion, its playback rate(and direction) are determined by features of the audio itplays.4

2.1.1. Implementation

The system was built in beads5 and comprises a variablerate sample player, listener module and short audio fileas shown schematically in Fig.1. The sample is playedat rate, R. When an onset is detected, absolute playbackrate is updated as a function of the most dominant fre-quency in the current audio buffer and its direction re-versed. Noise is added by means of a probabilistic updateregime. The probability is inversely proportional to thecurrent rate. This balances the effects of playback rate:at slower speeds, significant audio features will be furtherapart in time (and less prominent). See Fig.2 for details.

The listener module is an onset detector comprisingthe following analysis chain: short frame segmenter, fastfourier transform, peak detector and spectral differencemeasure. The peak detector follows the algorithm de-scribed in [6]. In this implementation the audio file is notoverwritten.

A resynthesis module is included for decoration (itplays no functional role in the process), highlighting themoments of change. When an onset is detected, an os-cillator bank is triggered, creating a complex chord. Thefrequency, duration and amplitude of each of N oscilla-tors is set according to the frequency and strength of thecorresponding first N partials in the current buffer. In thisimplementation, N = 10.

4The basic design principle adopted here is therefore one of circu-lar causality. This is nothing new. The approach lies at the heart of thecybernetic enterprise [20]. Its generative and interactive potential wasexplored by early electronic pioneers (consider e.g. Gordon MummasCybersonic Horn piece, Hornpipe (1967) and it has experienced some-what of a revival in recent years, following Di Scipios Audible Eco-systemic Interface series [5].

5beads is a Java library for real time audio: www.beadsproject.net

sample player listener

DSP

controlsignal

Figure 1. Self-determined sample player schematic

f o r c u r r e n t o u t p u t b u f f e rl ook f o r o n s e t si f o n s e t occu r s , w i th p r o b a b i l i t y , P

e x t r a c t p a r t i a l s F1 . . . nupda t e R a c c o r d i n g t o F1p l ay b u f f e r a t r a t e , 1 R new

e l s e p l ay b u f f e r a t r a t e , R

Rnew =1

Fp1 rK (1)

Where Fp1 is the frequency of the 1st partial, rK is a con-stant and R can assume negative values. P= f ( 1R )

Figure 2. Pseudo code and rate update equation

2.2. Sonic examples

The system is intentionally playful and lively and this isreflected in the output. A range of samples containingvarying degrees of harmonic and gestural complexity wereexplored. The examples given here include a dripping tap,Sprids, a field recording of blackbird song, Balckbrids anda live example with pizzicato cello, Spwang.

What we hear is an engaging and active explorationof the given sonic material with an apparent intentional-ity that belies the simplicity of the generative process. InSprids, the harmonic simplicity of the original drip devel-ops a coherent harmonic progression as each drip triggersa change in rate according to its harmonic content, alter-ing the pitch of the subsequent drips. Over time, the longterm structure (albeit musically trivial) unfolds accordingto the spectral content of individual sound events.

In Balckbrids there is a basic (and comic) expositionof the gestures contained in the original recording. Thisgestural exposition would be effective in a live interac-tive setting. Spwang provides a short excerpt from initialexperiments with improvised cello. In a performance set-ting, the self-directed exploration of material has the po-tential for a lively trading of gestures between instrumen-tal performer and digital components of a performancesystem, an aesthetic design principle which guides manyelectro-acoustic improvisation systems (e.g. [19]).

2.3. Other self-observing systems

The principle of self-observing systems is open ended. Afurther hypothetical example is outlined below.

_20 _21

Self-directed feedback circuits illustrates how a simi-lar generative process can be constituted across all levelsof a digital audio system, extending out beyond the con-fines of a formal algorithm and digital representation ofsound through the DAC, speakers, room, mic and backagain. It explores ways of auto-maintaining and directingthe Larsen effect to create complex, adaptive resonances.

In an analogue system, characteristics of feedback arte-facts are determined by the frequency response of the au-dio system (mic and speakers) and the distance betweenthem. The latter can be modelled digitally using delaylines. In a simple system, the effective gain can be man-aged by implementing a proportional control algorithm(such as a watt governor) which monitors the amplitude inits input buffers and adjusts the delay time (at audio rates).The gain on each channel can be similarly adjusted. Ini-tial experiments suggest that even this simple mechanismcan sustain frequencies other than those promoted by thefrequency response of the audio system, creating subtleshifts which are sensitive to tiny changes in the ambientenvironment. Further variation can be imagined by im-plementing frequency-dependent delay lines and setting,or evolving, the delay times according to the impulse re-sponse of the physical environment, frequency responseof audio system and spectro-temporal characteristics ofthe surrounding acoustic environment. Recent researchin automated methods of avoiding feedback (outlined in[18]) point to several potentially interesting avenues forexploration.

3. DISCUSSION

The Self-observing systems offer a simple illustration ofa generative sound art scheme which implements a sonicversion of Floridis ontological alignment. In the designof the generative schema, sound (or its digital represen-tation) is integral to the generative process such that thethe two are mutually constituted. What we listen to isnot the sonification of some numerical process at runtime,but the empirical epiphenomenon of interaction betweenthe two. Under this approach, we circumvent the need todefine either mappings to, or representations of, a finalsonic manifestation. This is offered in response to callsfrom the generative art community, that as the field ma-tures, it should move beyond the implementation of algo-rithms lifted from the sciences; it aims to illustrate howwecan explore changes in the broader cultural world, by re-presenting systemic principles of the changing infospherein the materials, both formal and sensory, of a generativepractice.

3.1. Generative sound art as a poeitic playground foran information society

The self-observing systems outlined above are also in-tended as a cartoon-like illustration of how a generativesound practice could reflect upon and explore the impli-cations of significant changes in our broader infosphere.The closing proposition of this paper is that this represents

a potent role for generative sound art in contemporary so-ciety.

To return to Floridis analysis introduced in section1.3, the metaphysical shift he identifies can be seen inthe following key changes: Objects and processes are be-coming de-physicalised, causing a shift from a materialistto information-based metaphysics in which they becometypified, clonable and support independent; As the worldfills with intelligent agents, we cease to be discrete indi-viduals and become networked inforgs, part artificial, parthuman, connected informational organisms; Interactabil-ity, rather than immobility or perceivability, becomes thecriterion for existence, even if the interaction is only vir-tual; The global infosphere is merging with the analogueworld, creating a world populated by intelligent, activeagents which challenge our Newtonian world view.

For the computer musician who has spent the last halfcentury designing intelligent, interactive, modular perfor-mance systems toward a networked digital practice, thisis nothing new. Artistically, the implications of such de-velopments could even be summarised as an increase increative opportunity. To the general public, however, thismay read as a science fiction scenario. For society at largesuch changes bring about significant ethical challenges,not least an urgent need to reconcile the technological andnatural worlds [8].

The public need for new ways to come to terms withthe existential and ethical impact of an increasingly tech-nologised society can be seen in the emergence of newforms of hybridised discourse. New Scientist, for exam-ple, have just launch a digital publication, Arc,6 whichmerges literature (science-fiction) and science (futurology)to explore the impact that technology is having on ourlives. Fiction gives us the chance to explore and be ec-centric says Simon Ings, a novelist, science writer andeditor of Arc. If one thing is for sure, the future is notgoing to be agreed by committee. The future is going tobe eccentric. And the best way of predicting the futureis to make it up. [16]. New branches of social scienceare also emerging which adopt the formal modelling andsimulation practices similar to those used in generative artpractice [11].

The simulation sciences provide ways of understand-ing the world through modelling. Science-faction pro-vides a speculative literary discourse for toying with pos-sible futures, but, as Manovich and others have suggested,the generative arts have the potential to speculatively toywith models of possible futures. The development of agenerative sound art practice has a unique potential asboth a poetic (imaginative, symbolic, figurative) and poi-etic (from the Greek, pioo , meaning productive,formative) discourse, one which could engage the ears,intellect and imagination in equal measure.

6http://www.newscientist.com/arc

4. CONCLUSION

Now, more than ever, we need new forms of discoursewhich enable us to come to terms with the complexities ofcontemporary society. Computer music, and more specifi-cally, generative sound art, represents a possible discoursethrough which we can model our world reflectively, tin-ker with these models critically, and present these storiesin the material of sound itself: to talk about the worldthrough sound.

5. REFERENCES

[1] I. Arns, Read me run me, execute me: Softwareand its discontents, or: Its the performativity ofcode, stupid, in read me Software Art and CulturesEdition, O. Goriunova and A. p. Shulgin, Eds. Cen-ter for Digital stetik-forskning, 2004, p. 178.

[2] D. Bisig and M. Neukom, Swarm based computermusic - towards a repertory of strategies, in Pro-ceedings of the Generative Art Conference, Milano,Italy, 2008.

[3] T. Blackwell, Swarm music: Improvised musicwith multi-swarms, in Procedings of the AISB Sym-posium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity inArts and Science, 2003, pp. 4149.

[4] F. Cramer, Concepts, notations, software, art,March 2002, last accessed: May 21st 2012.[Online]. Available: http://www.netzliteratur.net/cramer/concepts notations software art.html

[5] A. Di Scipio, Sound is the interface: From inter-active to ecosystemic signal processing, OrganisedSound, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 269277, 2003.

[6] S. Dixon, Onset detection revisited, in Proc. of the9th Int. Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-06), Montreal, Canada, September 18-20 2006.

[7] A. Dorin, J. McCabe, J. McCormack, G. Monro, andM. Whitelaw, A framework for understanding gen-erative art, Digital Creativity, (forthcoming).

[8] L. Floridi, The digital revolution as a fourth rev-olution, last accessed: May 12th, 2012. [Online].Available: http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/massmedia/pdf/bbc-1.pdf

[9] , A look into the future impact of ICT on ourlives, The Information Society: An InternationalJournal Volume, vol. 23, no. 1, 2007.

[10] P. Galanter, Truth to Process - Evolutionary Artand the Aesthetics of Dynamism, in Generative ArtConference, Milan, 2009.

[11] K. Gilbert, N. abd Troitzsch, Simulation for the So-cial Scientist, 2nd ed. Open University Press, 2005.

[12] K. Hayles,HowWe Became Posthuman. Universityof Chicago Press, 1999.

[13] S. Helmreich, Silicon Second Nature: Culturing Ar-tificial Life in a Digital World. University of Cali-fornia Press, 1998.

[14] T. D. Johansson, Mise en abyme in software art: Acomment to florian cramer, in read me Software Artand Cultures Edition, O. Goriunova and A. Shulgin,Eds. Center for Digital stetik-forskning, 2004, p.151.

[15] S. Kim-Cohen, In the Blink of an Ear: Toward aNon-Cochlear Sonic Art. Continuum InternationalPublishing Group, 2009.

[16] E. Liston, New scientists new digital magazinecombines science-fiction and futurology, The Inde-pendent, March 2012.

[17] L. Manovich, Abstraction and complexity,2004, last accessed: May 28th 2012. [On-line]. Available: http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/abstraction complexity.doc

[18] E. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Reiss, An automatic max-imum gain normalization technique with applica-tions to audio mixing. in 124th AES Convention,Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2008.

[19] D. Van Nort, P. Oliveros, and J. Braasch, Devel-oping systems for improvisation based on listening,in Proc. of the 2010 International Computer MusicConference, New York, June 1-5 2010.

[20] H. Von Foerster, M. Mead, and H. L. Teuber, Cyber-netics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanismsin Biological and Social Systems. NewYork: JosiahMacy, Jr. Foundation, 1953.

[21] M. Whitelaw, System stories and model worlds:A critical approach to generative art, in Readme100: Temporary Software Art Factory. Norderst-edt: BoDs, Dec 2005, pp. 135154.

[22] M. Yee-King, An autonomous timbre matching im-proviser, in Proceedings of the 2011 InternationalComputer Music Conference, 2011.