Alocas – a site-adaptive EAF work

Alocas is a dual screen, 4.1 channel audiovisual installation work completed in 2017. There are a number of aesthetic considerations central to its composition, relating to shape and form and how these are manifest sonically and visually. The initial genesis of the work was a consideration of the relationship between timbre and circular form (note, this is the intuitive underpinning of the initial formal considerations of the work – not intended as a primer on DSP!). Specifically, the work begins from the premise that, broadly construed, a sine wave at a particular frequency can be visualised as circular in form, and that the timbre of that pitch played on an instrument – a flute in the case of Alocas – might be visualised as a fragmented and granular manifestation of that circular form. Consequently, the combination of these two sounds together are visualised in the work as a series of particle systems in the left² screen which present both circular forms and more chaotic, granular versions of those forms through forces of attraction exerted on the particles within each system. This can be seen throughout the work, but is perhaps most visible at the outset, with each particle system beginning as a tight circular construction before progressing outwards into a constantly shifting, more granular circular form somewhat reminiscent of movements seen on Chladni plates.

The right video channel of the work is conceived as almost a microscopic representation of the left. Specifically, it is governed by the same physical behaviours as the first, but the particles are attached to one another, are significantly larger and are rooted in one spot, creating particle chains that appear to move organically with significant changes in the sound material. Their more fluid movement has been likened by audioviewers to microscopic organisms that can be seen moving in water, but they retain their relationship to, and coherence with, the circular forms on the left screen through the individual forms that comprise the particle chain and the nature of their direct, often parametric, relationship to the sound materials in the work.

The central sonic material in Alocas is constructed around 12 frequencies, moving sequentially through a series of pitch clusters – these are defined algorithmically in Max and played through a series of cycle~ objects, for a pre-defined maximum time limit and with Max choosing when to move from one cluster to the next within certain parameters. The work is palindromic, with regard to the central pitched material – the pitch clusters move through their defined sequence over a period of 5 minutes and then move back in reverse – giving the work a feeling of expansion or unfolding to the central point, both sonically and visually, and subsequent contraction (repose, disturbance and repose). The audio of the work is 4.1, and the pitch clusters in the work involve very closely (< 5 Hz) pitched sine waves which cause beating relationships throughout; having presented this work in a range of different spaces, it has become clear that the audibility and effect of this beating varies enormously dependent on the specific physical space in which the work is presented, something which was intended at the composition stage but was largely theoretical until the work had been exhibited in diverse spaces.

Further compositional intervention in the synthesised material through, for example, the inclusion or foregrounding of flute recordings and other sound materials, or an altering in the nature of sound processing, are governed by the initial dry run of the visual system for the duration of the work – in this case 10 minutes. The visual system for both channels has some element of chaotic behaviour built into them – they are able to, for example, alter their levels of attraction, or the behaviour of the particles within each system, within certain parameters. The first run of the system, without audio input, elicited a series of these unpredictable behaviours; the timings of these were then noted and used to define the points in the synthesised audio material at which intervention would take place. Unlike the initial generation of the material, this happened over the full 10-minute duration, so the timings of these interventions are not palindromic.

Alocas utilises a process for audiovisual composition that can be described as algorithmic aleatoricism, and it would be useful here to spend some time describing and discussing this term as it relates to both Alocas and Visaurihelix. The term can be applied to both the process underpinning the composition of both the sonic and visual materials in these and other recent works, and also the way in which the works are manifest and experienced in diverse physical and architectural spaces.

To fully flesh out this approach to developing materials for both of these works, it is best to begin with definitions of the terms algorithmic and aleatoric as they apply to composition. Unsurprisingly, each of these terms has been defined in variously specific and broad ways in a huge range of contexts, so presented here is one for each term – for algorithmic, Alpern’s succinct definition of algorithmic composition as “the process of using some formal process to make music with minimal human intervention” (1995), and Paul Griffiths’s similarly brief presentation of the term ‘aleatory’: “A term applied to music whose composition and/or performance is, to a greater or lesser extent, undetermined by the composer” (2001: 1).

Considered side by side in this way, these two definitions might almost be seen as somewhat interchangeable; indeed, structuring mechanisms such as using dice have been described as being both aleatoric and algorithmic. Consequently, for this context Meyer-Eppler’s presentation of aleatory processes is perhaps more instructive – “a process is said to be aleatoric… if its course is determined in general but depends on chance in detail” (1958: 55).

In Alocas and Visaurihelix, techniques such as the mapping of visual structures to sonic outcomes are done algorithmically in max; visual structures are used as the basis for defining changes in pitch or the emergence of rhythmic motifs over time. However, these materials are subsequently shaped and intervened with through a process that is somewhat chance-based – the visual systems developed for the work are able to enact certain behaviours at certain points, and the timing of these points in the initial rendering of the visual material determines when compositional intervention – such as changes in voicing, pitch, rhythm, processing – in the sound materials take place. This allows either the appearance of other materials, or the nature of the processing of the sound materials, to be somewhat based in chance; in this way, the course of the work is determined in general, but the fine detail of aspects such as processing or motivic foregrounding is left somewhat to chance.

The term ‘algorithmic aleatoricism’ also reflects the nature of the chance-based intervention as, itself, somewhat algorithmic – being defined by the chance behaviour of an algorithmic system. The term also effectively describes the relationship between the sound and visual materials – in some ways very tightly controlled and rule-driven, and in others more left to chance. This compositional strategy has been used as a way of both controlling, and not controlling, the audiovisual outcome of the two works presented here; having a clear sense of the overall compositional design – the course of the work and how it will develop – but allowing some of the fine detail to be left to both chance and rules-based procedures. At present, this is a very fruitful trajectory suggesting considerable further promise for development and has afforded the development of works that both look and sounds as desired, yet also afford the ongoing exploration of reciprocal audio-visual relationships with a certain amount of unpredictability. Further, there is significant resonance in both Alocas and Visaurihelix between the original compositional intention and the ultimate exhibition format, in that the physical manifestation of the work in specific architectural spaces might be seen as a reflection of this algorithmic aleatoricism.

Alocas is an example of a site-adaptive work – it is conceived for 4.1 audio with dual-screen visuals, ideally with the visual screens placed opposite one another in a small, very dark space. The intention is that the screens are large and close to the audience, allowing the audioviewer to engage in the complex visual structures in significant detail, whilst also being unable to really see everything that is happening visually at once. The 4.1 audio contains beatings and phase cancellations that alter dependent on the shape/size/resonance of the room in which the work is exhibited, alongside where in the room the audience is situated – consequently the audiovisual experience of the work is constantly shifting. The work has been most effectively realised at the Steven Lawrence Gallery in Greenwich, as part of the 2018 SOUND/IMAGE exhibition – for which a bespoke physical structure was built for the exhibition of the piece.³ It has, however, also been screened numerous times in concert format (most recently at the Centre for Contemporary Art [CCA] in Glasgow) and exhibited in single-screen format with 4.1 audio. Being adaptable to a range of spaces and formats requires the relinquishing of a certain amount of control by the composer over the outcome of the work – however, this could be seen as a further expansion of the possibilities of the work itself, and is in many ways complementary to the ethos of the work in presenting a range of audiovisual possibilities and experiences through subsequent reconfiguration.

In Alocas, then, the work effectively exists in a fixed format (two video channels, 4.1 audio), but the manifestation of that work in a physical space – how it will behave in that space, how an individual will respond to it and, indeed, even how many individuals are in the room with the work at any one time – has an unpredictable impact on the audiovisual space; the basic rules are in place, but the fine details are left to chance. Designing site-adaptive EAF work involves not only having an ideal exhibition format in mind, but being adaptable to a range of circumstances and contexts, and allowing the work to speak differently in each of these, as it would speak differently to each audioviewer in turn.

Visaurihelix – a site-specific EAF work

Visaurihelix was commissioned by the Lighthouse and Cryptic as part of Sonica 2018 and the Mackintosh 150 celebrations. Designed and constructed for the Mackintosh Tower at the Lighthouse – the former water tower of the Herald Building in central Glasgow – the work consisted of a 32-minute, 6.1 channel linear audio-visual composition played on speakers spread throughout the Mackintosh Tower, with visuals projected on a custom-built, octagonal plinth positioned at the base of the tower, and an interactive sonic element consisting of struck copper rods, reminiscent of a Glockenspiel, suspended over the void of the helical staircase. The work is an audiovisual exploration of Mackintosh design and, specifically, of five Mackintosh buildings in and around Glasgow – Scotland Street School, Hill House, The Mackintosh House, The Lighthouse and House for an Art Lover. It consists of five, 6-minute movements, each exploring a different Mackintosh space and design motif.⁴ All of the colour palettes in the visuals of the work are derived from Mackintosh stained glass panels found in each of the five buildings, and the sounds utilised, outside of the electronically generated materials which are mapped to the visual structures chosen for each movement of the work, were also all recorded within these five Mackintosh buildings.

Unlike Alocas, Visaurihelix is site-specific, being designed for and exhibited in a specific, highly unusual architectural space. Here, the visuals placed in the octagonal structure at the base of the tower become progressively more distant as the audience move up the tower, and become increasingly obscured by the copper rods, reminiscent of Mackintosh geometric forms, suspended across the void of the helical staircase. Consequently, although there is a very direct, generative relationship and considerable synchresis (Chion 1994) between the sound and visual materials in the work, this becomes less legible as the audience ascends through the space, and indeed this relationship is somewhat fragmentary from the outset, with the visual environment – on the octagonal structure in the base – being physically distant from the sound materials spatialised linearly throughout the 50-metre tall tower.

Conceiving and developing material for Visaurihelix, particularly with regard to the linear spatialisation, was challenging – without a 50-metre vertical structure in which to test out possibilities, one had to imagine how certain materials would sound when placed linearly in the space. However, again this was an aspect of the expanded and aleatoric nature of the work – the ultimate outcome, though important, was somewhat unknown and unpredictable, needing to be approached from a conceptual and theoretical perspective as opposed to a concrete one. The fragmentation of the sonic and visual spaces in the tower, again, afforded an expanded perspective on the audiovisual outcome of the works – though very directly linked, their physical dislocation and presentation in differing physical and perceptual spaces presented a unique challenge and required a relinquishing of control which historically would have been unthinkable in my fixed media work.

The site-specific nature of the work is such that it could not really exist elsewhere – its resonance with Mackintosh, his buildings and the 150-year celebrations created a very specific cultural space that could not easily be replicated. The fixed audiovisual component of the work is for single channel video, at 1:1 aspect ratio, with 6.1 audio, so could quite reasonably be exhibited in fulldome or IMAX format with multichannel sound. Whilst this would present a different kind of expanded audiovisual experience, it would not be the site-specific experience of the original version of the work – rather, a site-adaptive version and, with regard to the cultural site-specificity, an entirely different piece.

Finally, to return to the Bridget Riley quotation earlier in this chapter, the unfolding of the sonic and visual materials in both Alocas and Visaurihelix exemplifies the idea of ‘repose, disturbance and repose’ that has been a key feature of, on reflection, all of the non-performative audiovisual works I have developed through my career. The development of sonic and visual systems that begin at rest, move through more active and, often, disruptive audiovisual gestures and return to a state of rest represents a cyclic compositional form that, unknowingly, has been a feature of all of my fixed works to date. Interestingly, the utilisation of stark colour contrast and simple geometric forms generating more complex visual environments, which has been a hallmark of my own visual style, is also something that can be seen extensively in the work of Riley and as a huge admirer of her work that influence can be very clearly seen. It is interesting to reflect on the prevalence of both these formal concerns and the ideas underpinning them as manifest in my own work, and the extent to which this has exerted unconscious influence over the development of my audiovisual compositions.

Site: space, place, location

In describing the development of these works, I realise I have to some extent ridden roughshod over the preoccupations with space and spatial composition that is central to the practice of a large number of electroacoustic composers and sound artists. Evoking Maryanne Amacher earlier in this chapter was perhaps a little mischievous in this regard – whilst being a huge admirer of her work, Amacher’s approach to working spatially and my own are somewhat different. Indeed, as Stefani and Lauke (2010: 251) note:

A period of development lasting several months is unrealistic for most composers… but even one or two days of working in a space… should make a significant difference to the quality of musical results. This text proposes that techniques for acousmatic spatialisation will function most effectively when developed “on location”.… Despite the fact that there may be some potential transferability of materials and practice developed for the work to another location, such works are a product of one listening space; a musical counterpart to that environment.

My exploration of site-specific and site-adaptive works for EAF approaches the composition of these works in a somewhat different way to that advocated earlier, and might be more along the lines of that expressed by artists such as sculptor David Nash: “I keep my mind on the process and let the piece take care of itself” (2001). In the case of Alocas, the concern is with the construction of audiovisual materials that almost ‘carry on regardless’ of their physical location, looking and sounding different with each iteration and for each audioviewer’s individual trajectory through the work. In Visaurihelix, the nature of the building as a public gallery space rendered testing in the space impossible, creating ambiguity over the final outcome of the work up until the moment of installation. It was also borne in mind that a 50m tower ascended via a spiral staircase is physically affecting to the audience in a range of different ways (audience feedback documented vertigo in numerous cases, some exacerbated by the installation and others alleviated by it), and it is impossible to accommodate these in the composition process. Spatial considerations therefore became a little secondary, setting aside what the composer might consider as ‘the ideal’, as the audience’s physical experience of the space varies so widely.

Both Alocas and Visaurihelix are fundamentally concerned with space, in the Lefebvrian sense – they involve both real (physical) and imaginary (audiovisually projected) spaces which are situated, which evoke mental spaces for the audioviewer and which are inextricably bound to cultural institutions for their playback or exhibition. In the case of Visaurihelix, for example, the mental and cultural spaces evoked through the associations with Mackintosh may be quite specific and present for certain audience members, yet entirely illegible for others. They have a place (Castells 2000: 26) – they are part of an interpersonal relationship between the composer, the venue/place of exhibition and the audioviewer. They also have a location, and in the case of Visaurihelix, for example, this location is multifaceted, consisting not only of the physical location of the work within the Mackintosh tower, but also the location of the sound materials recorded in other Mackintosh locations and presented in the work, displacing and diffracting those locations and bringing them into the internal space of the installation.

Through delineating the two works presented here as site-specific and site-adaptive, I am once again returning to notions of process and concept – in Demers’s more inclusive definition, site-specific art could be considered as “any art that in some manner… addresses the topics of site and location” (2010: 4, My emphasis), under which banner both Alocas and Visaurihelix could comfortably sit. However, they are fundamentally different in how they are conceived, how they respond to the notion of site and how they are approached as expanded format works. Therefore this designation feels more constructive.