I have a starting point, defined by these audio snippets. This is what I know from before, and what I will use as a foundation for my research. In short, this defines me artistically, and provides framework for further exploration. I have been engaged in other outputs too, of course, but here, as in every other context, I have made a choice, a curation of sorts, to define, and show, where I come from artistically.
Within these fragments, I can find components that are elemental, that cannot be broken apart further, and that can be reassembled.
The opposite of “new” in music is not “old”, it’s “known”. As such, the term “new” can’t be applied to musical knowledge directly, a better term is probably “unknown”. This is not news, though.
I state this because in the first phase of my artistic research, I struggled a lot pondering how to answer the requirement as it is written in Regulations for the Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) degree in Artistic Research at the University of Agder, where it says that a PhD-fellow needs to “contribute to new knowledge, insight, and experience within the field”.
I was starting out with a question + specific regulatory requirements, and the task, summarized, was then to find an “answer”, and, contributing “new insight”.
At first glance, the question: “What music arise from a meeting of three artistic identities”, seems to be a good one, but as it turned out, definitions would present themselves as hurdles very quickly. As stated, “new” isn’t a good term, because, as Bread Mehldau recently wrote “The music is a safe space where self-expression is maximalized, and where an exchange of seemingly disparate ideas can result in a greater whole”.
As such, music as “maximalized self-expression”, implies that we all, listeners and creators, venture into known or unknown, not new or old. Therefore, I eventually found that I cannot contribute “new”. The best I can do is to showcase “unknown” and allow others to hear my work as conclusions drawn from that. This, in itself, was a discovery for me, but not really a thought I’m the first to ponder.
What I learned from that, however, was why the new knowledge in the context of artistc research actually is the music, and why it is “new knowledge”. It might seem silly, but I’ve spent 2,5 years figuring this out and only as I write this, experiencing a moment of glorious hindsight as I do, I see that my music appears “new” when placed in front of a musical horizon, and even though Adorno would say “in tension with the already known”.
Point being: By allowing, or forcing, yourself to venture into unknown (not new) territory, exploring and finding musical knowledge there, you might end up with a result that appears new (not unknown) when held against the musical horizon that suits the territory you’ve been exploring.
Pondering like this has been a huge part of my work, while at the same time, I have been constantly creating something. This presentation seeks to show how these two opposites have been working, and how they impact each other.
As part of examining my practice, I “tried to identify identities” by clarifying which roles or perspectives I naturally occupy as an artist—composer, performer or producer, for example.
This process involved breaking down existing methods to see how each “facet” interacts with others, rather than focusing on personal traits or external labels. By uncovering distinct artistic vantage points—instrument-based, genre-based, or process-based—the idea was that I could find new relationships between them.
This shifted the research from broad notions of identity to a more precise mapping of functions, allowing me to use each facet to influence a resulting artwork.
A facet could the be broken down further, into elementary components.
Criteria for being an "elementary component":
The constant is always the search for why. I have come to terms with the fact that I do what I do simply because I like it, and that, for me, is usually enough of a force to go somewhere.
Sometimes, though, I am moved along because I experience output from other artists, which fuels a need to reflect on that experience by creating something. Something else, or something in line.
I conceived a [NONAME]-machine, or creation machine, as a prototype tool for generating new musical ideas by combining different artistic inputs in a cyclical process. Instead of relying solely on personal taste or reacting directly to others’ work, I wanted to break from familiar creative paths and uncover fresh perspectives. This theoretical device helps me disrupt habitual patterns—both in thinking and in composition—by introducing a structured sense of distance. Through this approach, various musical and personal identities can merge in surprising ways, encouraging further creation.
Although it’s still a work in progress, the creation machine’s basic function is straightforward: I gather elements (recordings, improvisations, textual fragments, or outside collaboration), layer them, and see what emerges. I can repeatedly feed new material into the system, reassembling older pieces and blending them with fresh contributions. This cyclical loop means each generation of results can become source material for the next round of experiments, creating a fluid, open-ended process.
I also view this machine as an aid to my own brain—another “physical and theoretical machine”—by disrupting familiar neural pathways. Rather than descending into chaos, I give the [NONAME]-machine just enough structure to anchor my creativity while leaving room for spontaneity. The outcome is an interplay between controlled unpredictability and directed exploration, encouraging me to keep pushing toward unfamiliar territory.
For me, this method reflects my belief that a robust creative process requires guiding constraints while also questioning what I take for granted. My [NONAME]-machine fulfills both: it shapes the environment via layered inputs yet allows for unplanned discoveries. It doesn’t generate finished works by itself but ignites my imagination, prompting ideas I might otherwise overlook.
Though the device lacks a definitive name, it owes much to the “cut-up” approach made famous by William Burroughs and Brion Gysin, who sliced and rearranged text and sound to expose unexpected connections. By repurposing and reconfiguring various materials—improvised tracks, words, sonic fragments—I often stumble on patterns that nudge me into new artistic territory.
Every artistic endeavour comes down to work, to build on something small, and cultivate it to become something bigger. Finding a starting point, expand on it. Recognize the idea, allow it to be rearranged and reused. Use it as bait to fish for bigger ideas.
Paul Auster says that “the essence of being an artist is to confront what you’re trying to do”.
This is the work. Engage, put on the serious face, try to make it worthwhile. While doing it, it’s just pressing a key on the piano, hitting a drum or a cymbal, make a sound in a room. In the end, it’s piece of music on an album or on stage, a book, a film, or whichever manifestation you aim for.
The work is to notice something, which seems like nothing, but in reality is revealing and uncovering the world, but you won’t know that you’re uncovering the world when you’re doing it, which is why maximum effort is always necessary.
Random assembly triggers forced exploration. The goal was to access a space outside the known, and look for value in that. The assemblage is made from contributions that are based on the same reference material, ie. a track I provided. As such, I have a kind of impact on the result, and one could question the level of “random”.
On the other hand, “truly random” implies “no curation”, which to me is the difference between music and sound. Sounds are uncurated happenings, or interpretations, occurring without musical intent. Music is meant to be music. It is meant to carry an emotional value, and is, as such, curated.
Tools are simple things. They are the things I surrounded myself with. Tools are anything that can be used to manifest an idea.
When I get bored, I often look for a new tool. There is an endless supply of them, constantly being pushed by marketing departments, or enthusiasts. they come in digital form, or physical form. Sometimes they are digital creations inside a specifically designed physical unit. Electricity through valves, bytes or bits. Silicon states in a zillion chips.
The drums are a tool. So are my hands. Tools can be made. Tailored to suit specifics. Or you adapt to them, allowing the tools to influence you.
As a rule, I try to make the best of any tool, and to use it in a context where it works well. Sometimes tools are theoretical, like my machine.
Being restrained by tools has both negative and positive sides.
It begins by drawing on existing material—an established style, technique, or concept—that serves as a starting point.
The next step is to investigate by introducint a new component, which can be as simple as experimenting with a different instrument, inviting untried collaboration, or applying knowledge from another field.
When these two layers merge, the result is not merely an update of the original, but a transformation into something that stands on its own. This process acknowledges the continuity of artistic practice, while addressing a creative departure from a starting point.
The foundation is previous work, but its boundaries are pushed to find new meaning.
Ultimately, it lead toto outcomes that neither side could achieve alone.
After searching for interesting ways of having the facets of my artistic practice interact, conflict occurred.
The conflict arose from one facet overtaking another, more specifically, the producer came out on top of the musician, meaning that playing the music that would eventually become the Spirit of Rain-album, would prove impossible without sacrificing one or the other.
Stylistic coherence from the producer side clashed with the need to inject a performance with musical “reflection”, immediate and ongoing, as musicians do in a live setting.
Early on it became evident that trust had to be included as a specific component in my work. It is the answer to knowing that music is “maximalized self-expression”.
If it really is, and it is, then how do I as an artist select “the best” from a range of variations?
I was at a concert with the marching band my kids play in, and I liked it. I liked it, because I trust everyone in the band to play to the best of their ability.
That’s key. This can be applied to everything. If you do something to the best of your ability, then nobody can argue it is not good enough.
As such, being used as a collaborative catalyst, you may simply say that trust is essential in allowing diverse backgrounds and skill sets to coexist productively. Each collaborator can contribute ideas at varying stages of development, and without rigid rules dictating how or when to respond, fear of wrongdoing is non-existant. This method ensures that unfamiliar concepts or methods are not immediately dismissed but explored to reveal other connections.
It's important to remember that in a creative setting, there can be many people, or just one person. If only one, you are collaborating with yourself, and it might be even harder to trust these thoughts themselves. To allow yourself not to shut an idea down before it’s fully examined. To make sure your own lack of confidence isn’t really hindering you from walking down a new route. To be aware that noone else needs to know that a silly and seemingly embarrasing idea that was the starting point.
In practice, trust functions as an implicit agreement to suspend judgment until new proposals has been fully tested. Unfinished sketches and rhythmic outlines can be shared openly, inviting adaptations that can often lead to unforeseen yet valuable outcomes. Critically, each participant can rely on personal judgment to decide when to guide, alter, or step back, balancing self-confidence with respect for whatever emerges.
Releasing the single «Itzama» made me want to present it differently. As the song couldn’t easily be played live, I decided to make something else from it. Because of conflict, something else happened.
First, I made a conceptual music video.
Then I put the video inside an installation that I made.
Then the installation was presented at Bare studenthus. Then it went to the Fringe festival in Gothenburg.
Then I wanted to make more installations.
I looked outside of my own recording room too, to test the concepts of new, trust and best effort. I invited Jenni Øyom Askvig to participate, to re-create my tracks, re-arrange, re-make, re-write, if she wanted to. I wanted a way to show that “The opposite of “new” in music is not “old”, it’s “known”, as stated in the beginning.
Jenni put together a band, rehearsed and came to my studio, without hearing my versions of the tracks. What they came up with is something “new” in comparison to their horizon. Against their backdrop, it’s a new creation. Against my backdrop, it wasn’t.
Still not news, of course, but it made me see this point very clearly. The realization of this became a tool in itself.
The album Spirit of Rain was finalized, released and left behind. The conflict between facets was too big to make it worthwhile chasing the direction further. The realization didn’t even need reflection. I just moved on, and before I knew it, I were somewhere else. I can’t really explain why, but in summary:
Fun, yes
Rewarding, yes
Interesting, yes
Does not make me want to play live
Moving on, then, to the next phase, of complete deconstruction, searching for that spot where musical intent matches artistic facets.