Emotional Machines - Composing for Unstable Media.

Thorolf Thuestad

Emotional machines – composing for unstable media. Thorolf Thuestad In partial fulfilment of PhD in artistic research The Grieg Academy, Department of Music, Faculty of Art, Music, and Design, University of Bergen, 2021 The artistic research project Emotional machines - composing for unstable media explores how non-representational kinetic objects may afford affective and emotional responses, in particular experiences of kinship and relation between an audience and animated objects. Further possibilities for artistic expression are opened through composition and dramaturgy, in works where the animated objects perform alongside human performers and other media, such as light and sound. How may such animated non-representational physical objects be developed? How does animating the physical objects change the potential for experience of kinship and relation between audience and object? How does context modulate the potential for experience of kinship and relation between audience and animated physical object? How does the potential experience of kinship with the animated object differ for the creator of the object, and audience? These questions have been investigated through the creation of a set of animated kinetic figures. These figures have performed in a series of artistic presentations such as gallery exhibitions and stage presentations. The artistic research concludes with two complementary public artistic presentations taking place in bergen in June/July 2021; a time-based stage production at Cornerteatret and a gallery exhibition at Lydgalleriet. The presentations are considered connected and have the common title For one – for many – for all. This is an exposition of the research that presents the kinetic figures, the process of developing them, the questions they have contributed to explore, resulting artistic works (with particular emphasis on the final artistic presentations taking place in June/July 2021), the additional artists contributing to these public presentations, and a series of reflections resulting from the research. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emotional machines – composing for unstable media Thorolf Thuestad. Denne eksposisjonen presenteres som del av gjennomføring av doktorgrad i kunstnerisk utviklingsarbeid ved Griegakademiet, Institutt for musikk, Fakultet for kunst, musikk og design, Universitetet i Bergen, 2021. Emotional machines - composing for unstable media utforsker hvordan ikke-representative kinetiske objekter kan skape affektive og emosjonelle responser hos mennesker. Spesifikt opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon mellom et publikum og animerte objekter. Det åpnes ytterligere muligheter for kunstneriske uttrykk gjennom komposisjon og dramaturgi i verk der de animerte objektene opptrer sammen med menneskelige utøvere og andre medier, som lys og lyd. Hvordan kan animerte ikke-representative fysiske objekter utvikles med dette startpunktet som inspirasjon? Hvordan endrer animasjon av de fysiske objektene potensialet for opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon mellom publikum og objekt? Hvordan modulerer konteksten de animerte objektene presenteres i potensialet for opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon? Hvordan er den potensielle opplevelsen av slektskap med det animerte objektet forskjellig for skaperen(e) av objektet, og publikum? I Emotional machines – composing for unstable media har spørsmålene har blitt undersøkt ved hjelp av en gruppe animerte kinetiske figurer. Disse figurene har opptrådt i en rekke kunstneriske sammenhenger hovedsakelig galleriutstillinger og scenepresentasjoner. Prosjektet ble avsluttet med to utfyllende offentlige kunstneriske presentasjoner som fant sted i Bergen i juni/juli 2021: En tidsbasert sceneproduksjon vist på Cornerteatret og en galleriutstilling vist på Lydgalleriet. Presentasjonene er tilknyttet hverandre og har fellestittelen For one – for many – for all. Denne eksposisjonen presenterer de kinetiske figurene, prosessen med å utvikle dem, spørsmålene de har bidratt til å utforske, resulterende kunstneriske verk (med særlig vekt på de endelige kunstneriske presentasjonene i juni/juli 2021), kunstnerne som bidro til disse offentlige presentasjonene samt en rekke refleksjonstekster drevet frem av arbeidet med prosjektet.

What is

One reason the use of generative design causes me to question my agency as a maker is seems to be an encounter with the limits of (the)description. In the previous section, using language, I have described an overview of two working principles of computer-aided design and stated that they, on the surface, seem the same. Yet, I experience them very differently. This is caused by the description encapsulating only a very general overview of the mechanisms' functioning principle and from that claiming that they are similar. The similarity is relative and is dependent on scope or vantage point. The comparison would be very different if I focused on their differences rather than commonalities, and other again if I were to attempt describing their characteristics. My explanation is coherent in itself because it cannot encapsulate(nor can my conception) more than a minuscule morsel of the ever-evolving interactions that make up the "Dance of agency".

A small "reality" has been created by my description, containing a very general description of the two design methods and leaving out the many other possible narratives. My definition and its content are defined by what it lacks more than anything else.1 Suppose I am a curator more than a creator when using generative design to create virtual forms. We could turn the same lens to the description that leads to that conclusion. I also curate which aspects of the dance of agency I describe, and which I leave out. This determines the content of the description. Ultimately, I experience this personally, my continuously variable curation of the connections I perceive shifts the ontological borders of my conception of agency as a maker.

Why it is

CAD software targeted at parts design generally uses the paradigm of design history. This allows any dimensions to be adjusted at any point in the design process and then have all steps made later in the development, the "history", to update to accommodate that change. This is computationally demanding and, in combination with a focus on easily accessible precise measurements, creates a bias towards straight lines and simple geometry. Generative design is very different. It relates to spatial extents, strength requirements(material dependent), and load points. Simple geometry is not one of the requirements. The results are, therefore, not dominated by simple geometry but rather by complex flowing organic forms. These are often far superior when it comes to optimizing strength(if that is the design goal set for the generative algorithm) than anything a person can design using traditional CAD. When first seeing these shapes, it does not seem apparent that they will be superior to forms we are familiar with as being optimized for strength. They seem unlikely. This results from our shared familiarity with engineering conventions created by methods based on mathematics and traditional means. The shapes we think of when we imagine what constitutes a structurally strong object results from the methods used to generate the strong objects we know of and therefore guides what strong looks like to us. We are empowered by this heuristic dependability in that it allows us with some accuracy to predict the structural strength of an object. But we are also blinded by it. Generative algorithms are somewhat free from the restrictions imposed by such conventions. This results in the organic flowing shapes associated with that type of design.

In conclusion, when looking at the actions I, as an agent of making, undertake to design a shape, it seems on the face of it that the two methods are more or less the same. In both cases, the forms being generated by filling in virtual material between extents defined by the designer. However, for me, as a maker, they feel different. In the first, I have no doubt of my status as the creator of the design, I feel firmly planted in the driver's seat with traditional CAD. In the latter, I feel more like an instigator with the structure generated by forces outside of my control. I am a harvester of the fruits of the labour of the generative algorithms. Both computerized design methods rely mostly on factors outside of my control and can, as I have done, be here argued to be similar. My sense of my agency is a matter of my perception.

If I shift focus from looking at the tool and instead look at the motivation for using the tool, the agentic motivation changes. After all, I opted to use generative because I wanted to achieve a shape I was not able to design myself, realizing that and opting to enlist the aid of a generative algorithm gives me agentic currency.

What it says

Although it is a relatively young technology, the bodies that typically are created by generative design already represents a design language. Some will recognize the style of shapes generated. For them, they will most likely, like me interpret the form as having been created "by machines" which will carry with it its own associations. One is a narrative widely shared, causing us to feel uncanniness at the thought of the creative machine. 2

When this happens, it seems like it is the borders of habitus that is encountered. We interpret the output of the generative algorithm as a creative act because this is how our habitus informs us such shapes should be categorized. There seems then, to be a contradiction between the notion that creativity is something humans have, and the idea of a creative machine(although comparing the result of a generative algorithm to human creativity would require a definition of creativity as it occurs in humans).

When composing sound my experience, has always been that a large part of the creative act is collection and curation. The sound sources I use, either field recordings or artificially generated/synthesized audio, always depend on outside sources. The real life sound source, or the programmer's decisions, interface designer, and a musical tradition that inform software for creating sound and music that I use.

Tip

Tip

What is

Why it is

What it says