If there is one thing that complexity theory has taught us, it is to consider phenomena not as isolated events with properties of their own, but to observe them from a different perspective: as relations in a vast network of interdependent systems. In this light, the role of contemporary music performance has changed, and will continue to change, precisely because the context in which it is created and takes place is constantly evolving. Artistic research can provide the tools to be aware of these changes and to actively re-act in this changing context, not by simply transposing the context or its elements into a representational or aesthetic framework, as happened with the avant-gardes of the 20th century, but by breaking cultural boundaries through transpositions into distant fields with isomorphic functional principles. It is precisely because of this characteristic, which reveals the intrinsic interdisciplinarity in artistic research, that it is possible to revolutionize the traditional conception of music performance and not confine it to an aesthetic regime, but rather expand it to include the context. However, since relationships are not unambiguous, it is not just a matter of revising the concept of performance, but also of reviewing the way we experience and live in the context, as artists, as human beings, and as elements of a circuit of which we are only a small part. In this paper, I will first examine how environmental and social changes have been reflected in performative changes and the ways in which the context of the ecological crisis and contemporary performance are interrelated. Then, I will focus on my research project, “[in situ]”, highlighting its site/situation-specificity, flexibility, immersivity, and interactivity, and explaining how it aligns with and differs from other contemporary music performance practices.

G. Bateson, Verso un’ecologia della mente, Adelphi, Milano, 1977

D. Borgo, Sync or Swarm: Improvising Music in a Complex Age, Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., New York, 2005

M. Burtner, “Climate Change Music: From Environmental Aesthetic to Ecoacoustics” The South Atlantic Quarterly, Duke University Press, Durham, 2017

M. Cobussen, The Field of Musical Improvisation, Leiden University Press, Leiden, 2017

A. Evens, A Sound Ideas. Music, Machines, and Experience, Univesity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2005

V. Iyer, “Improvisation, Temporality and Embodied Experience” Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol 1, pp. 159 – 173, Cincinnati, 2004

E. Kirkkopelto, “Abandoning Art in the Name of Art: Transpositional Logic in Artistic Research” in Transpositions - Aesthetico-Epistemic Operators in Artistic Research by Michael Schwab, Orpheus Institute Series, Leuven University Press, Leuven, 2018

D. Kolb, R. Fry, "Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning.", Theories of Group Processes, John Wiley&Sons, 1974

M. G. le Roux, "«Whistle While You Work»: A Historical Account of Some Associations Among Music, Work, and Health", Am J. Public Health, American Public Health Association, Bethesda, 2005

D. Monacchi, B. Krause, “Ecoacoustics and its Expression through the Voice of the Arts: An Essay”  Ecoacoustics: The Ecological Role of Sounds, John Wiley&Sons Inc, Hoboken, 2017

O. Messiaen, Traité de rythme, couleur, et d'ornithologie, Editions Alphonse Leduc, Paris, 1994

J. Ranciere, The Emancipated Spectator, Verso, New York, 2011

D. Rothenberg, "Interspecies Improvisation", Oxford Handbooks Online, I, 2016

M. Sala, Music and the Second Industrial Revolution, Brepols Pub, Turnhout, 2019

R. M. Schafer, The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World, Destiny Books, Rochester, 1977

G. C. Whitehead, “Take It Outside, People! Bridging Ecoacustic and Improvised Music” Critical Studies in Improvisation, Vol. 14, Guelph, 2021

[in situ] : re-thinking the role of music improvisation performance in the context of the ecological and cultural crisis. 

What is the artist-researchers position in the realm of contemporary music performance? What contribution can they make? As we will see later, I believe that artistic research cannot be satisfied with a performance based on a transposition from a representational to an aesthetic regime. Instead, it should operate more radically on the interrelationships between the arts and the context of ecological crisis, even if this opens up scenarios that require the artist to relinquish control and accept unpredictability in the roles of the performance.

              I - [history]

 

I start from the assumption that writing exhaustively about how social and environmental changes are reflected in music performances would require a vast treatise, even without the aim of being exhaustive. For this reason, in this paragraph, I will only illustrate some aspects that I consider relevant to my research. The close connection between social/environmental context and music creation/performance appears as a common thread that unites various musical practices in diverse cultural and geographical contexts. The ancient Greeks, for example, used wind and water to create and play instruments like the aeolian harp or hydraulis, while in Alaska, the ancient people imitated seals and geese with the vocal technique katajjak (Matthew Burtner, 2017). Major social and environmental changes have had repercussions on the concept of performance and musical activity in general. Starting in the midi-18th century and spreading its developments along the 19th, industrialization and the expansion of large cities influenced musicians and listeners. According to Raymond Murray Schafer, the change in the soundscape necessitated an adaptation of performance spaces: the increase in urban noise made concert halls necessary. This isolation from the outside world influenced the composition of many composers (Felix Mendelssohn, Ottorino Respighi, just to name a few) who felt the need to bring suggestions of that ‘reality’ into the concert halls through the imitation and representation of natural events (R. M. Schafer, 1977). In these cases, performance becomes a window that nostalgically connects two distant contexts: the countryside environment, seen as an innocent, pure expression of nature, and the artificial reality of the concert hall isolated within an expanding city. An example of this is Mendelssohn's overture The Hebrides, inspired by his trip to Scotland, where he visited Fingal's Cave. Or, jumping to the early 20th century, Respighi's I pini di Roma. In this latter example, it is interesting to note how technological development allows the composer to incorporate into the score the recording of a nightingale's song through a recently invented phonograph, the Brunswick Panatrope. Beyond Schafer's flights of fancy, often more poetic than scientifically established, other studies have testified to relationships between the creation/performance of music and the Industrial Revolution. Music and the Second Industrial Revolution, edited by Massimiliano Sala, explains in detail how urban planning, technological progress, and work in industries have changed the way we listen to, perform, and create music (M. Sala, 2019), while Gordon Marc le Roux's study analyzes how music influenced factory work, increased productivity, and relieved stress due to deplorable working conditions (G. M. le Roux, 2005). In the 20th century, the concept of ‘urban noise’, coupled with technological and electrical developments of those years, began to be included in musical performance by composers such as Luigi Russolo, Pierre Schaeffer, and later John Cage, key figures in the emergence of electroacoustic music, which led to performances where the human element, traditionally the musician, was absent from the stage (R. M. Schafer, 1977). Other musicians, on the other hand, moved in the opposite direction, rediscovering the natural landscape as opposed to the urban environment. Composers such as Olivier Messiaen, Charles Ives, and Béla Bartòk explored the natural landscape (O. Messiaen, 1994).Whether in reaction, contrast, imitation, or acceptance of technological and urban explosion, 20th-century performances are inherently linked to the context from which they arise, influenced by it, and change the way audiences experience it. Musique concrète and soundscape performances are made possible by the technological advancements in recording, modulation, and diffusion, and they highlight a new way of experiencing reality through listening che si è sviluppata durante tutto il corso del secolo. In the current landscape, the aspects of ecological crisis and environmental changes are among the most significant factors affecting our society. Following the reasoning presented thus far, it is reasonable to assume that the art developed in this historical period is strongly influenced by this situation. Indeed, the development of eco-acoustics and the work of artists like Leah Barclay, David Monacchi, Bernie Krause, and many others emphasize the importance of safeguarding biodiversity and addressing the climate crisis by using environmental sound as a medium. They employ practices such as field recording, workshops, and soundscape compositions. At a performative level, there is a clear emphasis on immersion. Immersivity primarily stems from the blurring of the subject-object polarization in the artistic output, suggesting that the audience and the artwork are inseparable (D. Monacchi, 2017). Taking this to a higher level of abstraction, the direction taken by these currents leads to an expansion of our consciousness, or what Gregory Bateson calls ecological mind, which extends beyond the limits of our perceptual field and includes the context and our relationships with it (G. Bateson, 1977). 

 

 

The recording is a short excerpt from one of the five performances of "[in situ]" in the Parco Nazionale della Maremma. In photo below, one can get an idea of the morphology of the location/scenery. Four microphones were used, three for environmental recordings and one aimed at the audience. The modulation centre corresponds to what is visible in the video on the left. Although the event program mentioned the immersive and interactive potential of the performance, initially, the audience remained silent, as if they were attending a more traditional concert. In these initial phases, the interactions between me and the non-human elements were particularly significant. However, over the course of the five performances, there emerged, with progressively increasing intensity, a strong participatory dynamic that, especially from the third to the fifth performance, saw the audience becoming increasingly central in directing the course of improvisation and interacting with the performers. Particularly in the last two improvisations, a very intense dialogue developed between the audience and me, which led to marginalizing the role of environmental sounds, which drastically decreased their impact in the improvisational system. The emergence of this issue provides reflections in itself and will guide the development of my research in the upcoming performances. The audio above is an excerpt of a couple of minutes taken from the third performance, which lasted a total of 42 minutes, and what one is going to listen is a turning point in the performance, in which a listener approached the microphone and began to interact with me and the equipment, subsequently catalyzing the participation of other audience members. As you can hear in the first few seconds, I was sampling the chirping of birds and improvising with the obtained sound material, when, around the 15th second of the recording, a whispered voice changed the course of the improvisation. For release reasons, I am not authorized to share the video.

Having established the characteristics of “[in situ]” and how it differs from other approaches, I will briefly explain how the performances are organized in practice. In an attempt to seek answers to the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter, I intend to set up improvisations in ecologically heterogeneous locations. These may range from ecosystems with minimal human impact or symbiotic connections between human and natural elements towards highly urbanized areas or particularly degraded ecosystems. Technically, the involved elements of the system will include biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem, performers, audience members, and an electroacoustic chain (microphones + processing center + speakers).

The fundamental idea of “[in situ]” is a collective improvisation in which all the aforementioned elements are free to participate and be considered ‘performative’. The electroacoustic chain plays a crucial role as it represents a device for uniting and recycling the sounds produced by the audience, improvisers, and the environment. In short, the sounds generated by the performative elements are captured by microphones, processed, and reproduced through speakers. The modulation center consists of a mixer into which converge the microphones and my instrument (electric bass, in the video). A double chain of pedal effects is also connected to the mixer, including samplers, loopers, micro-loopers, ring modulators, granular delays, distortions, and pitch-shifters. Through the mixer, I can control the live sound flow coming from each individual microphone/instrument, partially or completely divert it towards these chains, modulate it with various effects, and send it to the speakers. The electroacoustic setup thus represents a key element for connecting the two systems at play, allowing the sound flows/ideas from the environment and improviser to blend and create something hybrid, which is different from both and is not necessarily the algebraic sum of the two streams. The use of electroacoustic devices such as pedal effects programmed to have intrinsic randomness, such as granular delays and micro-loopers, introduces some issues related to their agency and effectively introduces another component that influences the artistic output of this research. This component partially falls outside the control of the artist and the environment, although it is connected to both, but it sees the electroacoustic element with its own activity that must be taken into account. During performances, I have often experienced what Evens defines as the resistance of the instrument (Aden Evens, 2005). Using instruments that, by their construction, contribute to the performance with a high degree of unpredictability, the interrelationship between me and these devices is complex and constantly oscillates between symbiosis and friction. This complexity is a resource that contributes to shaping the performance, in which the paradigm of the artist's supremacy over the instrument is broken, but it arises from the relational dynamics among the elements of the system. The partial resistance and unpredictability, features that the electroacoustic apparatus shares with the other performative elements of [in situ], also contribute to what Borgo defines as surprise, which captures interest and, for this very reason, can enhance the effectiveness of this type of performance (David Borgo, 2005). In addition to the sound processing/modulation center, careful microphone placement will also be a crucial element. The choice of microphone placement is dictated by both potential environmental stimuli and the desire to avoid acoustic feedback that could arise when directing the microphones toward the speakers. Although it should be noted that the possibility of acoustic feedback, which would normally compromise the aesthetics of a conventional improvisational performance, is not only accepted here but also gives a meaning.

In an ecosystem, homeorhesis, the dynamic equilibrium that emerges between communities and the abiotic context, also depends on the amount of input received, that is, the energy and matter entering the system. Up to a certain level, negative feedback mechanisms lead to a decline in input caused by output. However, if that level is exceeded, such as when too much matter enters the system, the equilibrium is disrupted. Similarly, the performance is structured to process a certain volume of incoming sound. If a predetermined intensity threshold is surpassed, the introduction of acoustic feedback will shift or break the balance, potentially even leading to the end of the performance, while still remaining within the performance itself. Thus, “[in situ]” does not necessarily aim to represent an ecosystem in which it is situated but, in a sense, it works as an ecosystem due to the shared underlying mechanisms.

 

The performance, like our ecological mind, is never the same; it is mutable in every moment and in every context. I am an integrated system in which my body, my perceptual consciousness, and the environment I am in are unified. By moving to another space, I would change, and I would no longer be the same "I" as before. Similarly, the performance I propose is a unit formed by the synergistic integration of the performer, audience, and context, whose result is more than the sum of its individual parts. The importance of immersivity in this type of performance is evident, as well as a different concept of site-specificity and flexibility compared to those adopted in eco-acoustics. Monacchi defines site-specificity as a fundamental component for the creation of eco-acoustic works. In his works, site-specificity emerges from the setting in which he creates his installations, based on sounds recorded at other times and often in other places. I see a parallel with another field, the conservation ecology, in this principle. In this discipline, ex situ conservation refers to a mode of conserving species, usually at risk of extinction, outside their natural habitat. Similarly, in eco-acoustics, sounds that are at risk of disappearing, such as those that indicate biodiversity and disappearing places, are recorded, reproduced in other contexts, and preserved in archives so that they may be available to future generations.

 In “patterns for transcendence - [in situ]”, site-specificity is understood as the direct interaction of elements brought together in the same place. The act of sharing the same space at the same time gives rise to new and unexpected processes in improvisation, leading to flexibility and unpredictability. These characteristics prompt the artist to decentralize themselves from the spontaneous creative process that unfolds in the performance. The artist no longer holds control but consciously becomes an equal element among others. In this way, “[in situ]” materializes as an ‘anarchic' performance that abolishes the social hierarchy between active and passive intelligences, escaping the causal continuum between the artist's intentions, the spectator's perception, and the representation of a model.

The paradoxical effectiveness of this type of improvisation stems from embracing the uncertainty of its outcomes and the potential of the system's elements to translate individually perceived aspects and connect them with their life experiences.

 

             II - [in situ]

 

In my research project, "patterns for transcendence - [in situ]”, I am using improvisation as a means to experience the context and interact with its various elements. This project stems from the questions posed earlier, particularly the need to explore the boundary between improvisation and (cybernetic and community) ecology. Before proceeding, it might be worthwhile to briefly define what ecosystemic cybernetics and community ecology are. An ecosystem can be considered as a network of information, such as a network of physical and chemical communications, connecting various parts and regulating the system as a whole, in a holistic manner. Ecosystemic cybernetics studies the control systems, feedback loops, and automatic mechanisms that allow the ecosystem to maintain stability, self-regulate, making life possible for the elements within it. Community ecology studies the relationships between populations of different species within the shared ecosystem. In contemporary improvisational performances, how do improvisation and the environment interact? What is the impact of the environment on improvisation? What is the impact of improvisation on the environment? Perhaps the term "re-action" is more appropriate to describe the dynamic nature of what I am investigating, shifting the focus from elements to relationships. The term "environment" could be also ambiguous. In this case, it is observed through the lens of ecology, according to the developments of complex thought, that perceive it not only as a physical space but as part of a unified whole, in which the performer and the audience are included.Looking at “[in situ]”, improvisation is a process in which the improviser and the audience can only decide to a certain extent what they allow themselves to be shaped by and to what degree. The mode of listening in this type of performance, and consequently the process through which environmental elements are perceived and influential, differs greatly from the mode of listening in written music and it is, in a sense, a co-improvisational act. Similarly, soundscapers, in search of sounds in an environment, must consider the unpredictability and dynamism inherent in the environment in which they find themselves. For this reason, they use a listening approach very similar to that which occurs in improvisation.

Immersivity and temporality are concepts that underlie the relationship between active listening, field recording, and improvisation, even if not defining feature of these. However, unlike current soundscape and eco-acoustic practices, my research project involves a direct and synchronous interaction of the various elements of the improvisational system. It may be true that in most eco-acoustic works, direct and synchronous interaction exists and is present, but it is mostly one-directional. In fact, the interaction occurs from the recorded sound objects to the audience, and never from the audience to the elements that produced the sound objects. The only figure that has direct access and impact on these elements is the soundscaper or anyone who has performed the field recording, who is no longer on equal footing with the other participants in the performance but is in a privileged position, reconsolidating and crystallizing the role of the artist as a demiurge. As we will see later, I propose abandoning this privilege and embracing a greater unpredictability that aligns with the improvisational nature of performance, drawing inspiration from research conducted by artist-researchers such as David Rothenberg, David Borgo, Jonathan Impett, and Marcel Cobussen. Rothenberg is conducting research on interspecific communication through improvisation with different animal species. In his studies, it clearly emerges how not only his way of playing is influenced by the singing of these animals, but also how their singing is influenced by his way of playing. In performances, the distinctions between species disappear: as in all improvisational performances, individuality becomes less important and attention shifts to the synergistic interaction among elements sharing a common space-time. The pioneering work of Borgo, Impett, and Cobussen conceives musical creation from a cybernetic perspective and associates it with complex systems theory. In these studies, it emerges that music is tied to the context in which it takes place and that improvisational performances can be thought of ecologically: namely, as dynamic "wholes made up of wholes" (D. Borgo, 2005), in which the components are also complex and dynamic. In summary, what I have defined as meta-systems. Viewing these elements as parts of a system, without considering their relationships with the context, denies the dynamic, interactive, and emergent qualities of the performance. It doesn't make sense to delve further into this context, but, as we will see, some aspects of these works have influenced the course of my research

 

 

 

 

                                   [conclusions]

 

In an era as controversial as what some call the Anthropocene, I believe that artists not only have the opportunity but also the responsibility to question the political impact of their performances. Here, politics is understood both as the art of living together and as the partition of the sensible. The moment of performance creates the possibility of directly highlighting connections between elements that are often perceived as isolated, thus presenting a politically subversive opportunity.Artists can play a significant role in promoting a transformation towards a more sustainable culture. So far, this change has primarily been driven by science, which has sought to mitigate the negative effects of human impact on the environment. Unfortunately, today, acting solely on the effects is no longer enough, as is evident from the increasingly alarming dimensions of the ecological crisis year after year. To achieve a transformation in these terms, it is necessary to eradicate the underlying cause inherent in human beings themselves, namely their culture.

In this cultural change, the importance of environmental humanities, and particularly art, becomes evident. Artists can facilitate this transformation by proposing new experiences of living in our environment, transcending the dichotomies of nature-culture and human-nature, and illustrating a new aesthetics grounded in sustainability. This aesthetics, as defined by Bateson, involves a connection to the symmetries and mechanisms that unite us with the natural world. According to Jacques Rancière's model of aesthetic efficacy, paradoxically, this connection can be effective only removing art from the continuum between the artist's intention, the spectator's perception, and reflection on everyday life. 

As seen in the previous section, "[in situ]" becomes both a method for investigating the interconnections between performative practice and the ecology of the context in which it occurs, and a means to implement what David Kolb defines as experiential learning (Kolb, 1974). Performance becomes a concrete and direct experience from which the elements involved have the opportunity to develop reflections, observations, and potentially modify behaviors and choice. On the other hand, to conclude, it is interesting to note how the extradisciplinary conceptual approach that emerges from this type of performance folds back onto the artistic practice itself, leading to a very different improvisational language than what I usually use: my phrasing becomes more fragmented, I use a more atonal vocabulary, and I incorporate more heterogeneous sound objects. These aspects highlight relational dynamics that do not manifest in traditional improvisational performances.

With “[in situ]”, my objective is not simply to raise awareness of a problem since, often, the problem is already clear to everyone's consciousness. Instead, the aim is to use improvisational performance to enhance our sensitivity to the complexity of the world that surrounds us. This sensitivity, as defined by Bateson, is the "sensibility to the pattern which connects”, the sophisticated network of relationships that links all elements of an ecosystem, society, and the environment. It is a network from which human beings cannot escape as they strive to understand how to position themselves as humans within this intricate web.

 

This performance was carried out in an ecotone, which is a boundary zone between the urban techno-ecosystem and a pristine forest ecosystem. This ecotone is located in Montemarzo, province of Asti, in Piedmont (North-West of Italy). The ambient sounds were recorded using a bidirectional microphone and sampled/modulated live. In these two excerpts of the session, the interaction between the artist and elements of the ecosystems (dogs, birds, wind, etc.) is significant for the development of the performance.