In general, I don't think I would like to give an answer to any of
your questions. I will try to highlight aspects of your statements
which I find interesting and which may be further discussed.

* Ji

Reading your texts I read often the words /organic/ and
/segmentation/. It's interesting how you give these a central position
in your thinking and I think, in one way of the other, these two ideas
play an important role for all of us: it's probably a good idea if we
try to better understand what these two words mean for us.

******* Organic

I am (trying) to read the latest book by Yuk Hui "Recursivity and
Contingency". In the book he affirms that the concept of the /organic/
requires a different kind of philosophy and of thinking the world in
general. He tightly connects the idea of the organic with that of
/nature/ of naturality and departs from Kant to define it. In
particular:

"The clearer definition of the organic can be found in $64 where Kant
defines the organic being as follows: ''a thing exists as a natural
and if it is both cause and effect of itself''. [...] The concept of
the organic being consists in the reciprocal /relations/ between parts
and the whole and the capacity of reproduction. It also affirms the
twp important categories of relation: namely, community (Gemeinschaft)
and reciprocity (Wechsekwirkung). In other words, they constitute a
primitive form of self-organization. As Kant writes: ''[N]ature, on
the contrary, organizes itself, and does so, in each species of its
organized products -- following a single pattern, certainly, as to
general features, but nevertheless admitting deviations calculated to
secure self-preservation under particular circumstances"

Note the resonances with the concepts of autopoiesis and
self-organisation as in Varela and Maturana and the interesting use of
the word /calculation/ in the last citation.

******* Interaction

I also think that understanding how our /segments/ relate (and possibly
act back) with the people in the space is a central compositional
task.

******* Counting

Although very "enigmatic" , I find this statement very
inspiring. Could you elaborate a bit more? Or even make an example of
different kinds of counting?

******* bridge(s)

I understand your questions as relating to how our works (our
segments) interact with each other. I also agree this is central to
the work. I naturally would imagine them having the same character and
being bi-directional, but it's interesting to think they could be
different: one-dimensional and even, as you suggest, existing for just
some time. In a way, re-inscribing some sort of segmentarity into
these "bridges" by limiting them, in time and extension. I think it
could be a way to make these connections between the works more
"perceptible".

{function: response, keywords: [organic, natural, autopoiesis, self-organisation, calculation, interaction, visitors, counting, bridges]}

DP: Responses Round 1

* Daniele

It's inspiring how you draw a relation between your questions and your
work (or segment) and the architectural space and form of the building
we are going to interact with.

******* edges

Your questions:
"
- How can we create a situation where the environment and our work are
perceived as a single entity, rather than as two separate units
(background / piece)?
- What would it mean for our installation to have (acoustic) "edges" that are not always perceptible?
- Is it possible, and do you find it meaningful, to think about our
installation as an entity with no recognisable boundaries? What
would that mean in concrete?
"
give me the possibility to make something clear. Even if I envision a
situation in which our works (segments) integrate, as you say, into
the space they are installed in and with which they interact with, I
don't think this necessarily means that the space and the works
"disappear" into a new "artefact" or entity. Rather, I would like the
two elements or agents to retain a certain individuality, a more or
less clearly perceivable boundary along which their intra-action takes
place. Maybe this "separation" can be not so "clear cut", gray, and
dynamic. Still, I'm interested in the integration /movement/, the
/evolution/ of the interaction, the /deforming/ of both agents (space
and installation) due to their actions and reaction and less in a
static situation in which they become "one".

Personally, I interpret the /plausible/ in a different manner. Less
then something that "disappears" as something "normal", it is a sound
that is at the /margin/ of the set of sounds that may be ignored,
masked by our everyday repeated experience and those that attract
attention as fall out of the known, pre-depicted world. This margin is
very interesting to me.

******* affection

Reading through all our texts, I see the points you are touching here
are important to all of us. Maybe in the next iteration we should
focus more on this question.

Affection and influence are, in my opinion very near to each other in
meaning: maybe, influence is a bit "lighter", i.e. a "system"
influenced by another may /choose/ if, when and how to be
affected. Communication in some way, again in my view, always
presupposes some pre-shared knowledge or key through which some
message or meaning is encoded and decoded.

I see some connection here with my concern regarding interconnection
and interaction between our segments and the comment about "bridge(s)"
by Ji. I really think, as I think also Ji suggested, it could be very
interesting to include the possibility to have these "bridges" or
channels of influence open on just a few segments of time, or to have
the single works "decide" when they would be ready to be affected. I
think this could be a very interesting idea I would follow.

{function: response, keywords: [individuality, agency, intra-action, plausibility, margins, movement, evolution, perception, affection, communication, protocol, encoding, decoding, knowledge, bridges]}

* Hanns Holger

******* Foreground / background

In my opinion, foreground and background are primarily a matter of
perspective, the point of view (the zoom scale) taken by the
perceiver. If the sound our works project into space would "fall into"
some preexisting (the sound that is already there) behaviour, chances
will be high that it will not come into the surface of perception

I would be more interested in the movement between what you call
foreground and background, the (surely dynamic) threshold between the
two perceptual categories.

******* Reverberation

I think reverberation is (will be) part of the as it is part of the
space we are inserting ourselves, of the sounds we produce, we hear
and maybe analyse. It is already now when we are thinking of the
sounds we are going to inject into the space. It is even part of how
the people enters and interact with the space (think of the effects of
the reverberation of a big church on how you move...). It is IN the
sound, part of it.

******* Persistence

I also see a long time evolution, a sort of "memory" or
synchronization process sensible to long time patterns that is
continuously dynamically adapting, evolving and affecting our works.

******* Simultaneity

In my understanding, simultaneity refers to events processes that
share a same time, i.e. there is a reference temporal "arrow" which is
the same for these processes.

I would rather speak of similar time scales and thus extend the
segmentary into this dimension. Processes are parallel, the all have
their time, running independently, but they all operate on and
interact with similar time scales, injecting and listening to similar
temporal dimensions and through these connect to each other.

"the encounter in nearness that shapes all things (Sara Ahmed)": could
you please extend this?

******* Spatial relations

Spatial (/ temporal) relations might repeat, similar, along different
scales, a fractal of relations, extending through dimensions and scales.

{function: response, keywords: [foreground, background, perspective, perception, reverberation, memory, evolution, pattern, persistence, simultaneity, temporality, encounter, space, relationships, fractal]}