Transpositions

Constructing transpositons

DONE Answer Gerhard and Michael

Michael

Hallo Gerhard & David,

mir wuerde es helfen, wenn wir schon einmal anfangen koennten (1) ueber die wissenschaftlichen Partner zu sprechen und (2) Raummodelle - und transformationen zu sammeln.

David, zu (2), faellt dir dazu was ein? Ohne viel davon zu verstehen, fallen mir Stichworte wir `Raumzeit', `Phasespace' ein, aber auch `Morphometrie' ein, wo man scheint's ueber Raumtransformationen Verwandtschaften feststellen kann: http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/kunkel/shape.html

Kurz, gibt es Moeglichkeiten, mein Nicht/Kaum/Un-Wissen zu struktutrieren anzufangen?

Vielen Dank!

Michael

David

Lieber Michael, Lieber Gerhard,

Entschuldigt die verspätete Antwort.

Ja da fällt mir schon ein bisschen was ein. Ob ich der lage bin Wissen zu strukturieren weiss ich nicht, aber ich kann damit anfangen über diese Räume die Du hier erwähnst zu reden (ohne mathematisch zu werden), und nachzudenken. Um mir auch selber ine Bild davon zu machen. Ich hoffe das hilft. Ist zumindest ein Anfang.

Wie immer, ist mein schriftliches Deutch sehr dürftig… Ich hoffe ich schaffe es trotzdem klar zu sein uach wenn ich dies hier sehr schnell geschrieben habe, Aber das ist ja nur für uns, richtig?

"Raumzeit", auch Minkowski Raum genannt, ist ein konzept der, wir Ihr schon sicher wisst, von Einstein's spezielle Relativitäts Theorie berümt gemacht worde. Wesentlich ist es das die Raumzeit im mathematischen Sinne ein Raum ist was nicht nur Raum (hier als der drei dimensionale Euklidische Raum das wir üblicherweise benutzen um positionen von Objekten zu nennen) und Zeit irgendwie zusamment fasst oder vereint. Viel mehr, der Minkowski Raum "stellt sicher" das diese Vereinigung physiklischen Sinn hat.

Ok, hier sind schon ein paar wichtige Punkte die vielleicht an diesen Punkt wichtig sind sich näher anzuschauen.

  1. "Der Minkowski Raum ist im mathematischen Sinne ein Raum". In der Mathematik und der Physik gibt es sehr viele unterschiedliche Räume mit denen mann agiert. Aber das wesentliche ist immer das ein Raum aus zwei "Zutaten" besteht. Erstens eine Menge von Objekten. z.B. Positionen. Aber das kann alles andere auch sein wie z.B. Funktionen, Transformationen, Dynamischen Systemen, Farben, Energien, Frequenzen. etc, Zweitens, und das ist die richtig wichtige Zutat, eine Struktur. Was man hier als Struktur bezeichnet ist die definition einer mathematischen funktion die es ermöglich Beziehungen zwischen den objekten zu errechnen oder betrachten. Wie genau diese Struktur oder Funktion gebaut ist, und wie Sie sich verhält definiert was das eigentlich für ein Raum ist (und nicht welchen Objekten es beinhaltet).

    Meiner Meinung nach ist das der wichtigste Punkt wenn man über Räume redet.

    Im prinzip geht es um Distanzen. Aus der Struktur qkann man herleiten wie man Distanzen zwischen der Menge von Objekten errechen kann. Die Struktur kann man auch als "Metrik" bezeichen (siehe weiter unten).

  2. "der Minkowski Raum stellt sicher das diese Vereinigung physiklischen Sinn hat". Also, ok, wir haben eine Menge von objekten, im Fall der Relativitätstheorie 3d Positionen + alle Zeitpunkte. Es gibt unzählige (valide) Strukturen die zu diesen Raum (Zeitraum) passen. Es gibt unendlich viele Funktionen mit denen ich eine Metrik für diesen Raum definieren kann. (Übrigens, diese unendliche vielen Funktionen bilden für sich auch einen Raum, aber das ist eine andere Geschichte). Welche wählen? Hier kam Einstein ins spiel und helfte dabei die richtige Struktur zu finden. Einstein selber hat nicht die Raumzeit formalisiert, das kam nach seine theorie, und wurde eben vom Minkowski formalisiert basierend auf Einsteins Überlegungen.

  3. Zu diesen Punkt gehört für mich die Frage: wie kommt man zu eine definition von der Struktur? Das ist eine sehr schwierige und interessante Frage. Ich glaube ich kann zwei "Methoden" entdecken (zumindest in der Physik).

    Es kann bei Physikalischen Überlegungen oder mathematischen Formulierungen einer Theorie zuerst nicht umbedingt mit Räume zu tun hat. Es kommt aber einen Punkt wo etwas ganz bestimmtes passiert, eine Formel gefunden wird das unter anderen Beziehungen zwischen Objekten definiert (was auch nicht immer gleich erkannt wird), und aha! da muss ja wohl einen Raum "dahinter" stecken. Das passier oft in der Physik. Und ist immer ein schönes Moment wenn es passiert (und lehrnt). Räume ermöglichen Dinge und komplexe Vorgänge zusammen zu fassen, bildlich darzustellen und ergendwie "anzufassen".

    Auf den anderen Seite, "von innen", wenn ich vor mir eine Menge von irgenwelchen Objekten vor mir habe, und ich diese Strukturieren will. Das passiert öfter in der Mathematik und ist oft ein schwieriger Prozess nachzuvollziehen. Das sind meisten sehr allgemeine Theorien die dann dabeirauskommen (aber auch sehr schöne).

Zurück zu den Räumen. Die "Raumzeit" von der ich bis jetzt geschrieben habe gehört nur zu einen Teil der gesamnten Relativitäts Theorie. Der zweite Teil, die Allgemeine Relativitäts Theorie, geht einige Schritte weiter, was Räume betrifft. Eigentlich, um deutlicher zu sein, beschäftigt sich diese Theorie wirklich mit der Natur des Physikalischen Raum.

Die Allegemeine Relativität Theorie ist, für mich, einer der schönsten Teile der Physik. Es ist eine mathematische Theorie die ein wunderschönes Formalismus entwickelt das auf Tensoren (mehrdimensionale Matrizen dessen elemente funktionen sind) basiert und dessen Forschungs Gegenstand die Metrik des Raumes ist.

Die wichtigste Aussge der ganzen Theorie ist die Folgende: "Gravitation ist KEINE Kraft. Gravitation ist eine Eigenschaft der RAUMZEIT". So was heisst das? In wenigen Worten. Objekte, dadurch das Sie eine Masse besitzten, krümmen die Raumzeit, wie die Oberfläche eines Betts gekrümmt wird wenn ich eine Bowlingkugel drauf stelle (ein Bild das mittlerweile jeder kennt, oder?). Das andere Objekte auf den Bett von der Bowlingkugel angezogen werden, ist nicht weil die Bowlingkugel eine Kraft auf diese ausübt, sondern veil das Bett gekrümmt ist.

Also die allgemeine Relativitäts Theorie beschäftigt sich mit gekrümmten Raumzeit(en) und dessen Metrik. Was heisst das? Der Minkowski Raum ist "nur" Flach. Das heisst im das die distanzen im ganzen Minkowski Raum mit der gleichen Funktion berechnet werden können unabhänging davon zwischen welche Punkte ich die Distanz berechne. Das ist dan nichmehr so in der gekrümmten Raumzeit. Wie man Distanzen errechnet (das sagt mir die Metrik), ändert sich über den Raum. An jeden Punkt ändert sich die Metrik. Wie sich die Metrik ändert ist die Frage die dies Theorie versucht zu beantworten.

Jetzt zu anderen Räume die mich persönlich auch sehr interessieren. Diese zwei haben was mit einander zu tun denn sie befassen sich mit Dynamische Systeme. Es sind der "Konfigurations Raum" und der "Phasen Raum".

Als erstes der sogenannte "Konfigurations Raum".

Nehmen wir einen mechanischen (oder dynamischen) System. Alle parameter die die Konfigurationen dieses System bescheiben und identifizieren können, bilden die Achsen eines Raumes, den Konfigurations Raum.

Diese Parameter sind auch generalisierte coordinaten genannt. Das sind z.B. für eine sich frei bewengende Masse im Weltraum wären diese paramter die x, y, z coordinaten. Für ein Pendel hingengen wären diese paramter die der Winkel des Pendels. Im ersten Fall ist die Konfiguration der Masse die normale 3d position und der Konfigurations Raum der normale Euklidische Raum. Im zweiten Fall ist es was anderes, ein 1d Raum der eingentlich in sich selbst geschlossen ist (da 2Pi = 0: es ist eigentlich ein Kreis). Oft müssen natürlich diese Paramter einige Beschränkungen (constraints) erfüllen: in diesen Fall ist der KonfigurationsRaum des System nur ein Subraum des ganzen. z.B. ist die masse gebunden auf eine Sphäre sich zu bewegen dann ist der Konfigurations Raum diese Sphäre im 3d Raum

Wichtig ist das diese Konfigurationen NICHT die sg. Zustände des Systems sind. Konfigurationen sagen nichts darüber aus über Energie oder das Zeitliche Verhalten des Objekts oder des Systems aus. Der Zustand eines System oder Objekt beinhaltet aber diese Information.

Wichtiger Punkt hier: In den meisten Fällen in der Physik geht es eigentlich "nur" um eines: Energie. Wenn man weiss wie die Energie eines Systems sich "verhält" (i.e. sich über die Zeit verändert, oder nicht, welche "Struktur" Sie hat), dan hat man das Systems "verstanden" und man kann es beschreiben.

Im allgemein ist die Energie (von ein System, von ein Objekt) eine Funktion von dessen generalisierten Coordinaten ( ~ die Position) und den Impuls ("momentum" auf english, ~ die Geschwindigkeit). Der Zustand eines Systems beinhaltet Information über sowohl Positionen als auch Geschwindigkeiten es ist ein Vektor der aus alle generalisieren Koordinated eines Sysyems und die dazugehörigen Impulse. Zustand und Energie sind also eng "verwandt" (sind manchmal, speziell in der Quanten Mechanik, so benutzt als ob sie ds gleiche wären).

Zustände sind also viel interessanter als Konfigurationen. Wie man schon vermutet, gibt es ein Zustands Raum (State space) und diese art von Räume (zustands Räume) sind die am meisten benutzten und studierten Räume in der Physik (die ganze Quanten Mechanik wie die Teilchen Physik oder Festkörrper Physik besteht eigentlich ausschliesslich aus den Studium dieser Räume).

In der Klassischen Mechanik und in der Theorie der Dynamischen Systeme, ist der Zustand ein Vektor der alle Generalisiertne Koordinate und Impulse beinhaltet. Also im Fall unsere sich fei bewegende Masse im Weltraum besteht dieser Vektor aus 6 einträgen (x,y,z,px,py,pz) und der Zustands Raum (= die Menge alle Zustände) ist in diesen Fall 6 dimensional. Im Fall des Pendels wäre der Raum 2 dimensional (winkel,winkelImpuls) und ist eigentlich ein Zylinder da eine Dimension in Kreis ist. Die Art des Zustands Raum hängt also mit den spezillen System ab den man gerade betrachtet.

So, und jetzt machen wir den letzten Schritt und kommen endlich zum Phasen Raum.

Bis jetzt ist der Zustands Raum das wir betrachtet haben ziemlich "nackt". Es ist nur ein leerer Raum. Aber so ist es nicht. Betrachten wir ein Punkt in den Zustands Raum, also ein Zustand von den speziellen Dynamischen System. Und jetzt machen wir die Zeit "an". Die Zeit hatten wir bis jetzt nicht in betracht gezogen (naja irgenwie ist die Zeit in den Impuls drinnen aber nicht explizit). Jetzt kommt Sie wieder im Vordergrund denn es geht hier um Dynamischen Systeme und diese sind von Differential Gleichungen beschrieben die uns sagen wie ein der Zustand eines System über die Zeit sich entwickelt. Also wir werden sehen wie der Zustand des Systems sich im Zustands Raum "bewegt" und eine Trajektorie zeichet die wir "Phasen Portrait" nennen.

Wenn der Zustands Raum zu einen Dynamischen System "gehört" was von Differential Gleichungen Beschrieben ist, dann kann man von jeden Punkt im Zustands Raum solche Phasen Portraits zeichnen und so wird der Zustands Raum zum Phasen Raum.

Diese Phasen strukturiern den Raum. Wenn mann betrachtet wie sich diesen in den Raum verhalten, wo Sie sich hinbewegen oder wegbewegen, welche struckturen Sie Zeichnen, ob es Attraktoren oder Repulsoren oder grenz Linien oder Flächen die die Phasen Trajektorien anziehen oder wegschieben, kann man sehr viel über den Dynamischen System im allgemein sagen.

Im allgemein sind solche Dynamischen Systeme unlösbar. Nicht nur "schwierig" sondern wirklich mathematisch unlösbar. Was man aber machen immer machen kann ist den Phasen Raum eines Dynamischen System zu studieren: man wählt ein oder mehrer Anfangs Punkte (= Anfangs Zustände) und lässt diese dann deren Trajektorien zeichen. Mann kann dann dadurch verstehen (oder versuche zu verstehen) was für eine "Struktur" sich in den Raum versteckt.

Wichtig: Der Phasen Raum ist nicht "nur" eine (anschauliche ) Representation des Dynamischen Systems. Nein, der Phasen Raum, mit dessen geometrischen Strukturen, IST das Dynamische System. Die Formulierung durch Differential Gleichungen und die Geometrie des Phasen Raums sind Isomorph also gleichwertig.

Ich habe ein schönes Buch zu diese Thema gefunden, dort sind viele Beispiele drin. Ich finde es interessant da es ausschlieslich mit visuellen Mitteln und ohne Mathematik versucht die Theorie der Dynamischen Systeme und Phase Räume zu erklären. Ich habe es für euch hier zum runderladen hingestellt (ist ziemlich groß da es eben fast nur aus Zeichnungen besteht): http://iem.at/~pirro/book.zip

Kurz noch zu den Räumen in der Quanten Mechanik. Ich hoffe ich kann es bisschen klarer machen was hier passiert (und das ist ziemlich schwierig…) Wie ich schon sagte, geht es hier nur um Zustands Räume. Nur ist her die Situation komplizierter denn Zustände sind nicht nur "Punkte" in einen Raum, das sind Funktionen. Also im Phasen Raum wie wir es bis jetzt betrachtet haben ist ein Zustand ein Vektor aus 2*n Einträge. Es ist kein einzelner Wert aber es ist "fix". In der Quanten Mechanik ist ein Zustand nichts "fixes" in diesen Sinne. Es ist eine Funktion die beschreibt wie sich das System im ganzen Raum verhält (oder verhalten würde wenn es diesen Zutand hätte). Vielleicht kann man sagen das jeder diese Funktionen einen eigenen Phasen Raum beschreibt. Das wunderbare ist aber das sich diese Funktionen sich untereinander so verhalten als ob Sie Punkte oder Vektoren wären in einen Euklidischen Raum: man kann sie multiplizieren, den Betrag ausrechnen, Projezieren etc. Sie haben also eine Struktur die es ermöglicht Sie als Raum zu betrachten, den Hillbert Raum.

Ich hoffe ich habe auch die Ideee nicht allzu verwirrt…

Über "Morphometrien" weiss ich leider nicht viel, aber diese Transformationen sehen ein bisschen so aus wie gekümmte Raumzeit(en)…. :)

Ich hoffe das hilft ein bisschen?

Besten Gruß.

David

2014 03 18, David & Gerhard, MUMUTH

  • Zeitraum Variationen
  • Modus der Zusammenarbeit
    • Balance zwischen aufgetragener und selbstbestimmter Arbeit
    • BA variabel halten, anpassen an Davids andere Arbeit
    • eigene (Davids) Forschungsinteressen müssen einen zentralen Platz haben können
    • Offenheit schaffen, in der alle Aspekte der Zusammenarbeit adressiert werden können
    • man muß immer sagen können, wenn einem etwas zu viel ist
    • wir müssen unsere Erwartungen austauschen
  • Zeitraum als Ausgangspunkt für TP
    • Synergie mit Klangräume, CoS
    • Parcours
      • 33 Snaredrums, Clicktrack, Notation, dirigieren?
      • (Metronomsteuerung Musil, Peter Jakober, Steirischer Herbst, Bläserstück)
      • Tänzer klatschen lassen
      • David Idee: Zikaden, versuchen sich zu synchronisieren
      • David: Aufträge für Reaktion auf Zeitraum, Konferenz, Call, peer review, Form kann man frei wählen
      • David: Stück mit klatschenden Menschen, die versuchen sollen, zusammen zu Klatschen
      • Zeitraum durch Menschen aufführen lassen, MusikerInnen kompensieren automatisch
    • wie mit den "Erkenntnissen" von Zeitraum systhematisch komponieren (geometrisch)
    • scheint immer um Raum zu gehen, wieso?
    • Raum, Zeit, Bewegung, Geschwindigkeit, Energie
    • Veränderung ist die Basis für Wahrnehmung (von Räumen)
    • MUMUTH in the box
    • Variationen, performance GUI, Parameterräume,
    • Zeitraum als Vehikel um über Phasenräume / Modelle ins Gespräch zu kommen
    • Unmöglichkeit oder Inexistenz von Gleichzeitigkeit
    • was ist Zeitraum eigentlich? Prisma
    • Daten einfach in den Zeitraum werfen
    • den Parameterraum so weit wie möglich ausweiten, besonders für das spielerische Explorieren wichtig
    • side effects of chosen representation may become important (e.g. Zeitraum diagram)
    • Entsprechung zwischen Zeitraum und Michaels Algorithmus
    • Sonifikation von Michaels Algorithmus

Kickoff

  1. Get the data into Rhino Transbody or Rebody data into Rhino Develop infrastructure for the project Three elements:
    • Data analyse
    • Supercollider
    • Rhino points lines planes curves splines
    • Data into Rhino at first only static, OSC interface is not necessary now.
    • Rhino only as production tool
  2. Data sets
    • EGM
      • Rebody
      • Transbody
    • EEG
    • Grifftabellen
    • Tremor
    • QED
  1. Interaction
  2. Composition with abstract objects
  3. Rhino phase space

Meetings

Michael, Skype

<2020-03-19 Thu 15:00>–<2020-03-19 Thu 16:00>

Michael, Skype

<2020-02-18 Tue 15:00>–<2020-02-18 Tue 16:00>

Inflatable transport iem

<2019-08-07 Wed 09:00>–<2019-08-07 Wed 13:00>

Gerhard Michael, Appear

<2019-07-30 Tue 12:00>–<2019-07-30 Tue 13:00>

Gerhard Michael, Appear

<2019-06-12 Wed 11:00>–<2019-06-12 Wed 12:00>

Gerhard, Tracking CUBE

<2018-12-11 Tue 14:00>–<2018-12-11 Tue 19:00>

EFEP Nachlese Gerhard, Martin, Andreas

<2018-11-07 Wed 09:00>–<2018-11-07 Wed 10:30>

Gerhard, Tracking CUBE ??

<2018-11-08 Thu 10:00>–<2018-11-08 Thu 20:00>

Gerhard, Tracking, CUBE

<2018-11-09 Fri 15:00>–<2018-11-09 Fri 22:00>

Gerhard, appear

<2018-10-18 Thu 10:30>–<2018-10-18 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-06-26 Tue 15:00>–<2018-06-26 Tue 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-06-20 Wed 11:00>–<2018-06-20 Wed 13:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-05-18 Fri 10:30>–<2018-05-18 Fri 11:30>

TP, Science by ear 2018

Gerhard, Abendessen

<2018-04-18 Wed 20:00>–<2018-04-18 Wed 22:00>

Gerhard, Michael Genetics

<2018-05-08 Tue 14:30>–<2018-05-08 Tue 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael Appear

<2018-04-03 Tue 14:00>–<2018-04-03 Tue 15:00>

  • Font problem

Gerhard, Martin

<2018-04-13 Fri 13:00>–<2018-04-13 Fri 14:00>

Gerhard, TP

<2018-03-09 Fri 18:00>–<2018-03-09 Fri 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Martin, Skype

<2017-12-06 Wed 10:15>–<2017-12-06 Wed 11:45>

Gerhard, Michael, Pelin, skype

<2017-12-18 Mon 11:00>–<2017-12-18 Mon 12:30>

Gerhard, lunch

<2017-10-20 Fri 12:00>–<2017-10-20 Fri 13:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-07-17 Mon 15:00>–<2017-07-17 Mon 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael

<2017-07-10 Mon 16:00>–<2017-07-10 Mon 18:00>

Gerhard, Michele, Jackfield

<2017-06-29 Thu 10:30>–<2017-06-29 Thu 11:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-28 Wed 10:15>–<2017-06-28 Wed 11:45>

Gerhard, TP, Diss

<2017-06-21 Wed 12:00>–<2017-06-21 Wed 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-22 Thu 15:00>–<2017-06-22 Thu 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Phoebe, Skype

<2017-07-04 Tue 16:00>–<2017-07-04 Tue 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-13 Tue 15:00>–<2017-06-13 Tue 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-05-03 Wed 22:00>–<2017-05-03 Wed 23:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-04-18 Tue 10:00>–<2017-04-18 Tue 11:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-04-04 Tue 09:00>–<2017-04-04 Tue 10:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-03-24 Fri 15:00>–<2017-03-24 Fri 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-28 Tue 10:30>–<2017-02-28 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype Catalogue

<2017-03-06 Mon 14:00>–<2017-03-06 Mon 15:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-23 Thu 10:30>–<2017-02-23 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-10 Fri 10:30>–<2017-02-10 Fri 12:00>

Gerhard, Exhibition Stockholm

<2017-01-19 Thu 11:30>–<2017-01-19 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-03 Fri 11:00>–<2017-02-03 Fri 12:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype ??

<2016-12-06 Tue 16:00>–<2016-12-06 Tue 17:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-12-15 Thu 16:00>–<2016-12-15 Thu 17:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-29 Tue 10:30>–<2016-11-29 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-15 Tue 14:00>–<2016-11-15 Tue 15:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-03 Thu 13:00>–<2016-11-03 Thu 14:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-10-19 Wed 11:30>–<2016-10-19 Wed 12:00>

Presentation TP, Barcelona?

<2016-11-17 Thu 19:00>

  • Text Michael

    Transpositions [TP]. Artistic Data Exploration

    Funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Transpositions [TP] investigates the possibility of generating new auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and mathematical transformation of scientific data. The project also asks whether and how these new forms are of scientific significance by challenging the collaborating researchers to scientifically engage with the artistic outputs. In this context, ‘transposition’ is understood as data transformations whose frames of reference may appear arbitrary since they include the aesthetic qualities of the results. While this approach is partial and unscientific, its outcomes may nevertheless be of relevance, if by ‘relevance’ we do not only understand scientific discoveries but also new modes of imagining data and an enriched research culture.

    COMPASS is the scientific partner for TP’s second case study. The other case studies focus on artificial neuronal networks (completed), cosmology and DNA interactions (both in progress).

    The presentation will introduce the research project and show examples of the work to date in order to communicate its transpositional approach to data and the particular relationship between the arts and the sciences that we propose.

    In discussing our work-in-progress we also hope to receive feedback that can helps us to further develop the case study.

  • Text David

    Transpositions [TP]. Artistic Data Exploration

    Funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Transpositions [TP] investigates the possibility of generating new auditory and visual forms based on transformations of scientific data. The project also asks whether and how these new forms are of scientific significance by challenging the collaborating researchers to engage with the artistic outputs. A ‘transposition’ is understood as data transformations whose frames of reference may appear arbitrary since they include the aesthetic qualities of the results. While this approach is partial and unscientific, its outcomes may nevertheless be of relevance, if by ‘relevance’ we do not only understand scientific discoveries but also new modes of imagining data and an enriched research culture.

    The presentation will introduce the research project and show examples of the work to date in order to communicate its transpositional approach to data and the particular relationship between the arts and the sciences that we propose.

  • GRZ -> BCN

    <2016-11-17 Thu 06:15>–<2016-11-17 Thu 10:40>

  • BCN -> GRZ

    <2016-11-19 Sat 08:50>–<2016-11-19 Sat 12:50>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-09-22 Thu 11:00>–<2016-09-22 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-10-07 Fri 11:00>–<2016-10-07 Fri 12:30>

Gerhard, COMPASS, iem

<2016-09-19 Mon 16:00>–<2016-09-19 Mon 19:00>

TP Minoriten

<2016-11-12 Sat>

  1. Neuro Video
  2. Loudspeaker Installation
  • Text

    In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich eine Form der Forschung etabliert, deren zentrale Methode die künstlerische Praxis ist. Diese künstlerische Forschung eröffnet uns einen neuen Blick auf unsere Welt und ihre Phänomene. Durch ihren Fokus auf die Gestaltung ästhetischer Erfahrung erlaubt künstlerische Praxis Strukturen offen zu legen, deren man sich mit anderen Methoden nur schwer gewahr werden kann. Eine grundlegend kritische Position gegenüber künstlerischer Praxis und ihrer Kontexte ist dafür Voraussetzung. Spezifisch für künstlerische Forschung ist, dass die sinnliche Erfahrung ein primäres Mittel ist, aus dem Erkenntnis hervorgebracht und durch das diese auch mitgeteilt wird. Das Erleben der Kunst ist von zentraler Bedeutung für die Forschenden und deren Publikum, das so auch Teil des Forschungsprozesses werden kann. Mit “Trans” präsentieren wir Werke, die im Kontext künstlerischer Forschungsprojekte entstanden sind.

TP, Barcelona

<2016-11-17 Thu>–<2016-11-19 Sat>

Gerhard, TP Stockholm

<2016-12-15 Thu>–<2016-12-18 Sun>

  • GRZ -> ARN

    <2016-12-15 Thu 06:15>–<2016-12-15 Thu 11:30>

  • ARN -> GRZ

    <2016-12-19 Mon 18:25>–<2016-12-19 Mon 22:55>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-07-26 Tue 22:00>–<2016-07-26 Tue 23:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-07-19 Tue 15:00>–<2016-07-19 Tue 16:30>

Stockholm, TP?

<2016-08-22 Mon>–<2016-08-23 Tue>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-06-29 Wed 10:30>–<2016-06-29 Wed 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-06-22 Wed 16:00>–<2016-06-22 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2016-06-14 Tue 14:00>–<2016-06-14 Tue 15:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-05-03 Tue 10:00>–<2016-05-03 Tue 12:00>

Ritonja

<2016-04-26 Tue 15:00>–<2016-04-26 Tue 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-04-13 Wed 14:00>–<2016-04-13 Wed 15:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-04-22 Fri 14:00>–<2016-04-22 Fri 15:00>

Michael, Skype?

<2016-03-10 Thu 11:00>–<2016-03-10 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-03-03 Thu 11:00>–<2016-03-03 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, IEM

<2016-03-04 Fri 15:00>–<2016-03-04 Fri 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-02-16 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-16 Tue 11:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-02-04 Thu 11:00>–<2016-02-04 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, skype

<2016-02-02 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-02 Tue 11:00>

Michael, London

<2016-02-23 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-23 Tue 13:00>

  • DONE Book London flights and hotel
  • DONE Put Dienstreise on Alois!!!

    <2016-02-08 Mon 09:00>–<2016-02-08 Mon 09:30>

  • Graz -> London

    <2016-02-22 Mon 14:25>–<2016-02-22 Mon 17:45>

  • London -> Graz

    <2016-02-24 Wed 11:10>–<2016-02-24 Wed 16:00>

  • DONE Dienstreise London

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-01-28 Thu 11:00>–<2016-01-28 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-01-14 Thu 11:00>–<2016-01-14 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, Michele, CUBE

<2015-12-18 Fri 11:00>–<2015-12-18 Fri 13:00>

Gerhard, COMPASS

<2015-12-10 Thu 14:00>–<2015-12-10 Thu 16:00>

Skizzo, COMPASS

<2015-11-10 Tue 14:00>–<2015-11-10 Tue 15:00>

Transpositions Skype, Astronomie Data??

<2015-12-03 Thu 13:00>–<2015-12-03 Thu 14:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-11-02 Mon 19:00>–<2015-11-02 Mon 20:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-10-21 Wed 12:00>–<2015-10-21 Wed 14:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-10-19 Mon 19:00>–<2015-10-19 Mon 20:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2015-09-25 Fri 10:00>–<2015-09-25 Fri 11:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2015-10-01 Thu 11:00>–<2015-10-01 Thu 12:00>

  • DONE Ask for DtV Dates in January for Daniel Minoriten

DARE Conference

<2015-11-09 Mon>–<2015-11-11 Wed>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: d585e5f7-8c34-4a5b-ae3c-70b7c3b8df3c

<2015-08-26 Wed 10:30>–<2015-08-26 Wed 12:00>

  1. Book
  2. RC
  3. Case Study 2

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: ab142bd5-2699-4628-8c42-81586df89759

<2015-09-09 Wed 13:00>–<2015-09-09 Wed 14:30>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: 9da5887e-08de-4914-9a77-09f10cb6519d

<2015-09-23 Wed 10:30>–<2015-09-23 Wed 12:20>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-10-07 Wed 10:30>–<2015-10-07 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Giulio, Graz??

<2015-10-24 Sat>–<2015-10-25 Sun>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-11-03 Tue 10:30>–<2015-11-03 Tue 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-11-18 Wed 10:00>–<2015-11-18 Wed 11:30>

Michael Gerhard, Wien

<2015-11-27 Fri>

  • Gerhard -> wien

    <2015-11-27 Fri 13:30>

  • Meeting for Space

    <2015-11-27 Fri 17:30>

Philosophy an Stage no.4 Conference

Paolo, Michael, Tanzquartier <2015-11-28 Sat 20:30>

Michael, Gerhard, Dynamical Systems, Skype

<2015-12-02 Wed 10:30>–<2015-12-02 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-12-16 Wed 10:30>–<2015-12-16 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: 8b28bd69-a143-48da-9b1c-6e5402bbc7e0

<2015-04-28 Tue 10:00>–<2015-04-28 Tue 12:00>

Michael Skype

<2015-04-22 Wed 15:00>–<2015-04-22 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

:ID: 5726a4a0-d5c9-43b3-bf0f-2e12a1836b01

<2015-04-21 Tue 10:30>–<2015-04-21 Tue 11:30>

Michael Skype

:ID: 55a2fd9e-2b00-4042-b1e8-2c84f7bbce79

<2015-01-20 Tue 16:30>–<2015-01-20 Tue 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype ?

<2015-03-06 Fri 13:00>–<2015-03-06 Fri 14:30>

Luc, Skype

<2014-12-10 Wed 18:00>–<2014-12-10 Wed 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2015-05-06 Wed 15:00>–<2015-05-06 Wed 16:00>

Gerhard, Michale, Skype

<2015-05-06 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Transpositions

<2015-05-06 Wed 09:00>–<2015-05-06 Wed 18:00>

Michael, Digital Abstraction, Bremen

<2015-05-06 Wed>–<2015-05-09 Sat>

Gerhard, Spikes

<2014-12-08 Mon 15:00>–<2014-12-08 Mon 17:00>

Gerhard, IEM

<2014-10-20 Mon 14:30>

Graz, Michael, Gerhard

<2015-01-17 Sat>–<2015-01-18 Sun>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: ce2ce48d-3a2f-4969-9763-e113842e55fc

<2015-01-09 Fri 13:00>–<2015-01-09 Fri 15:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2015-01-29 Thu 13:00>–<2015-01-29 Thu 14:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: 5067d4ac-0ef8-4668-a1b2-9f868573aa4d

<2015-02-10 Tue 09:00>–<2015-02-10 Tue 18:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: 0cf43cc3-6dd5-4c1d-b1f8-ba2142b6fbb6

<2015-02-25 Wed 13:00>–<2015-02-25 Wed 14:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: b3063d5e-25f2-4d99-b563-21c3266a8f2b

<2015-03-11 Wed 10:00>–<2015-03-11 Wed 13:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-09-24 Wed 12:00>–<2014-09-24 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-10-08 Wed 12:00>–<2014-10-08 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-10-21 Tue 14:00>–<2014-10-21 Tue 15:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-11-05 Wed 12:00>–<2014-11-05 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-11-17 Mon 14:00>–<2014-11-17 Mon 15:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-12-03 Wed 12:00>–<2014-12-03 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-12-18 Thu 14:00>–<2014-12-18 Thu 15:30>

Stockholm, Gerhard, Michael

  • Travel
    • Wien -> Stockholm

      <2014-09-01 Mon 12:55>

    • Stockholm -> Wien

      <2014-09-04 Thu 16:40>

  • Costs
    • flight : 282.19
    • Hotel 276
    • Train 19 x 2
    • Bus 8 x 2

Skype Gerhard

<2014-07-02 Wed 11:00>–<2014-07-02 Wed 13:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-08-04 Mon 21:00>–<2014-08-04 Mon 22:00>

Skype Gerhard

<2014-07-22 Tue 21:00>

TP Stockholm

<2014-09-01 Mon>–<2014-09-04 Thu>

Gerhard Traminer

<2014-12-11 Thu 18:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-03-26 Wed 12:00>–<2014-03-26 Wed 14:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-04-08 Tue 14:30>–<2014-04-08 Tue 16:30>

  • Blender script for 3d visualisierung script for taking an image every 15 degrees
  • Transbody rework on in. collect material an past ideas in the RC
  • AP Wien http://www.kibirooms.at

Gerhard, IEM

<2014-04-07 Mon 15:00>–<2014-04-07 Mon 17:00>

Wien Gerhard, Michael

<2014-06-17 Tue>–<2014-06-18 Wed>

  • Graz -> Wien

    <2014-06-17 Tue 12:25>–<2014-06-17 Tue 13:00>

  • Wien -> Graz

    <2014-06-18 Wed 14:03>–<2014-06-18 Wed 16:33>

TODOs

Transposition installations @ SBE4 2018


  • The Metaboliser is an audio visual work developed in the context of the Artisitc Research project “Transpositions”. During this project data sets extracted four different research contexts have been used:

    • deep inelastic scattering events recorded in particle collision at the COMPASS experiment at CERN
    • neural network simulations run at the Institute of Computational Neuroscience at the KTH in Stockholm
    • data regarding galaxy clustering from the Beecroft Institute of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at University of Oxford
    • genome folding data from the Science for Life Laboratory at the Swedish national center for molecular biosciences.

    These data sets have been used by artists /researchers (Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab and David Pirrò) as molding material for generating new sonic or visual forms. To this end, tools and techniques common in data visualisation and sonification have also been used as operators on the data sets: the chain of transformations is therefore kept mathematically transparent and reproducible. Nevertheless, the aim is not to produce perceptible artefacts with a definite function, namely that of conveying some kind of information about the data. Rather, the intent is to generate audio-visual objects that escape the paradigms of information or representation. Centering on the construction of new aesthetic relations between perceptual qualities of those forms and the material is a means for enacting novel speculative positions about the data.

    The following pages contain a description of some of the ideas that played a role in the development of the Metaboliser. These pages are taken form a text appearing in the Catalogue to the exhibition "Schwärmen Vernetzten" which will by published in 2018.

    The Metaboliser is a process to continuously generates visual and sonic forms according to the state of a evolving dynamical system. The Metaboliser is a computational process that is set to "digest" the data sets it is presented with: the data origin or possible interpretations of its meaning, do not play a role. From the perspective of the metaboliser data is just a collection of numbers organised in some way. These numbers are absorbed by the metaboliser, but sediment in the its very structure modifying the dynamical system at its core changing how the process will evolve.

    There is no isomorphic relation between the visual and auditory metaboliser produces and the data. It is not an analysis tool that finds and displays some qualities of its input. Nevertheless the data co-determines the system's behaviour being radically entangled within the metaboliser's systems.

    What you see and hear is an example of audio visual forms the metaboliser generates.

    process has digested five different data sets: the four mentioned above and the Irish household consumption data used in this workshop.

    The metaboliser does not just develop on its own, it is also influenced by the input it receives. This input can be any kind of data. The metaboliser does not make any difference with respect to its origin, their supposed meaning or interpretations. It just takes the set of numbers it is presented with and "digests" it: this process of "metabolisation" results in modification of the frequency and coupling factors of some elements in the system, depending on the characteristics of the data set, i.e. how many elements it contains and their value. Thus, the metaboliser, takes in and absorbs the data in its very structure: it is modified by it and it future evolution will be affected by every data set that "sediments" into it. In the digestion process the input data completely disappears as a recognisable entity: there is no way to take it out from the system in any way, once it is injected into it. No isomorphic relation exists between the output, the visual and auditory metaboliser produces and its input. It is not an analysis tool that finds and displays some qualities of its input. Any specific form it will produce will be strongly determined by its past inputs. The data will become part of its behaviour and radically entangled within the metaboliser's systems.

    The images you see in this pages, are selected details of some visual traces of the metaboliser's process: the digested data is data from recorded particle collisions at CERN, data of the simulation of neural networks, genome folding interaction data and astrophysical data of the matter distribution in the universe.


  • Rebody by Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab and David Pirrò is a video and an installation piece in which the captured motion of a dancer is transposed into a dynamic drawing that informs a musical composition.The piece explores the dance movements, the drawing algorithms and the musical structures in an attempt to transpose rather than represent the dancer's movements. Rebody is based on motion-capture data collected from Bodyscapes (2009), an intermedial dance solo performance by Valentina Moar(choreography/dance), Gerhard Eckel and David Pirrò (composition).

DONE Skizzo has to sign the TP Stuff!

  • State "WAITING" from "NEXT" [2018-02-12 Mon 11:11]
    waiting for skizzo to send stuff back

Gerhard feedback on new Zeitraum Formulation

Luc git access

Change paths in git sc files

Mails

DONE MUMUTH Keys, Gerhard

List

  • AIL
    • DONE AIL Test and preparations
      1. Acoustic measurements
      2. Measurement of space (Gerhard)
      3. Test of the monitors: Monitor can playback media which is on an USB Stick connected to them. Also, the playback can be controlled from another machine vie wifi. The available controls are: play, stop, pause, next (clip), previous (clip). Only drawback is that when jumping to the next clip in the lower left corner a control menu appears. Not very nice. Maybe this can be avoided by rendering a very long video file and use just the play and pause controls
      4. Tested wifi connectivuty in the Gallery: With the wifi router we have bought it seems that not all of the gallery can be reliably covered, as expected. The wifi extender / access point we have bought seems to work well though, it help in making the situation more stable, especially in the spaces in the basement. We probably should buy more of these
      5. As Gerhard already said, the laser seismograph does not work as we expected. We decided to cancel it and use the piano keyboard (piano should now be in the space towards the major street) to display low frequency vibration picked up by a microphone.
    • DONE Jackfield (for AIL, with Michele)

      Field of 10x10 jack headphone connectors. Plugging the headphones into one of these 100 connectors should trigger the playback of a different sound file. Arduino controlled. Multiplexer CD74HC4051 ahs to be bought in order for the arduino to sense which plug is being used.

    • DONE Arduino Triggers (for AIL, with Michele)

      Build and Test the triggers to send OSC messages via wifi (arduino + ethernet shield -> access point -> wifi -> computer in the network).

    • DONE Prepare SuperCollider code to control CEUS piano:

      Code Prepared with Gerhard didn't work because of lack of information from them. Waiting for the feedback from Vienna about the exact protocol used.

      • DONE set a meeting beginning of march in Vienna to test the

        piano together with Artemis

      • DONE Write Gerhard results
      • DONE Fix date for next time in april
  • Cosmology
    • DONE Apply EEG triangulation algorithm to cosmology data

      Exported as obj files for Rhino

  • Compass
    • DONE Compass CERN data export
    • NEXT Compass data Visual (with Michael)
      • DONE Cleared some questions on the data with Michael
      • NEXT Error "blobs" drawing
        1. Find out which multiple of the standard deviation along X and Y should be used in order for the blobs to at least touch each other.
        2. I asked Giulio about the strange value relations between Vertex Error ad Trajectory error. Waiting for reply.
    • DONE Hits data COMPASS

      Giulio said that after having talked with the CERN code "gurus", it seems possible to reconstruct the hit data from the raw data we have. He will have time next week (Week 9) to do so.

    • DONE Fulled out formular ZS-QU1 from Giulio

      Asked (again and again), waiting for Giulio to send it back

    • DONE 3d Model of Compass Detector

      Asked (again), and waiting

  • Genetics
    • NEXT Genetics data

      Were is the data? Michael asks Gerhard. I would need a description of both the format the data is stored in and consequently a description of Michael's idea. After the meeting in London this last part is more clear, still it is not clear if the data is in a form which allows that "interpretation".

DONE Freistellung Plan Travel + airbnb Stockholm Stockholm!

SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-28 Fri>

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-29 Sat>

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-30 Sun>

Transbody

Dates

  • CANCELLED Transbody, Wien
  • Vienna, Gerhard, Dancing the Voice

    <2014-10-27 Mon>–<2014-11-01 Sat>

  • Vienna, Gerhard, Dancing the Voice

    <2015-02-02 Mon>–<2015-02-07 Sat>

Dancing the Voice

Wien 27.10 - 01.11

  • Packlist
    1. Tracking (full, trolley)
    2. PC, Monitor, keyboard, mouse
    3. Fireface 800 + cables?
    4. second mac Laptop (old mac book pro)
    5. HUB + cables

Tracking Tests Marian

  1. Sync Problem Tests Contact Optitrack support
  2. Stalled Cameras with extensions?
  3. Include Timetags in the OSC message in the NatNet2OSC application as message (not as OSC timetag) after rigid body index
  4. Test "ripples" with pendulum

Wien 02.02.15-08.02

  • Wien be in tanzquartier

    <2015-02-02 Mon 10:30>

  • Wien, Work with Gerhard

    <2015-02-08 Sun>

  • Orga
    • Skype Gerhard, DtV

      :ID: da5bf6f4-5e58-4ea1-ab38-cb80dc150ef2

      <2015-01-28 Wed 11:00>–<2015-01-28 Wed 12:00>

    • DONE Rent car for Wien, Telefon
    • DONE Take car Graz
    • DONE Take car in Vienna
    • DONE Car back in Graz

      :ID: 360e2633-1f29-4f94-b799-4adbe5e3fa0d

    • Packlist
      • [X] 18 cameras (18)
      • [X] 18 super clamps + heads (18)
      • [X] 18 camera cables + reserve (21)
      • [X] tracking targets, 4er, all
      • [X] 3 hubs + reserve + netzteile (5)
      • [X] 3 hub cables + reserve (6)
      • [X] 3 USB extensions (2 short, 1 long) + reserve (10)
      • [X] 2 sync cables + reserve (5)
      • [X] tracking computer with 3 USB ports, keyboard, monitor, mouse
      • [X] tracking laptop with 3 USB ports
      • [X] USB hub + netzteil
      • [X] audio laptop (Gerhard’s old)
      • [X] video laptop (David’s LE laptop)
      • [X] beamer adapter VGA / DVI
      • [X] Ethernet switch (Tracking, audio computer, video computer, reserve for debugging)
      • [X] 1 long Ethernet cable (tracking computer)
      • [X] 3 short Ethernet cables +reserve?
      • [X] old software versions (installer)
      • [X] dongle + info seriennummer
      • [X] calibration kit
      • [X] fader box BCF2000 (connected via USB)
      • [X] nano (usb)
      • [X] Mackie 1604
      • [X] 10 patch cables
      • [X] FF400 + firewire + 400-800 fw cable
      • Coffer
        1. tracking system
        2. clamps
        3. pc
        4. laptop
        5. bcf2000
        6. My rucksack
        7. mixer
      • Marian, Tracking System packing

        <2015-01-29 Thu 11:00>–<2015-01-29 Thu 13:00>

    • DONE Re record On Traces tracking data

Ringvorlesung, Kendra Stepputat, HS 11.1, EG in der Heinrichstr. 36

<2016-06-29 Wed 18:30>–<2016-06-29 Wed 20:30>

  • Notes
    • Presentation myself
      • Mention slides in english
    • Begin to work at the IEM in 2007 in the project EGM
      • Main theme of the project was the relation between body (body movement) and sound (sound production)
    • Why is this an important theme in CM?
      • Known as "the body problem"
      • In Electronic Music and Computer Music sound generating and sound organisating processes are basically decoupled from the body and body movement
      • As opposed to classical instruments where the interface (eg. violin) and the sound producing object are tightly bound, so that they cannot be taken apart
      • In CM this is not the case. Sound synthesis and processing and interfaces for control are decoupled: one can exchange one of the two without changing the other
      • It is a big theme in the context of CM and EM: conferences and hardware and software developments
      • Examples: (theremin, faders, gloves, tracking, extended instruments etc.)
      • The aim is to develop guidelines for developing interfaces which can be intuitive, readily bodily connected
      • Model which is followed is that of classical acoustic instruments.
      • (often forgetting the year long training which is necessary for a musician to shape her / his movements, thinking and body in order to play the instrument as they do)
      • But the "problem" might be seen as an occasion. Liberating music productions from the performers limitation
    • Embodied Generative Music
      • 2007 until 2010 at IEM
      • Two main research lines:
        • Peters:
        • Eckel /Pirro
      • Embodiment:
        • Why did we work with dancers: they are embodiment specialists
      • Generative Music
      • Concept of embodiment in EGM: the possibilities of extending dancers’ bodies into a virtual instrument using a full-body motion tracking system.
      • Should be understood as an artistic research project
    • NO! Artistic research:
      • Research IN the arts (not ON or FOR) (Borgdorff)
      • Non propositional (Mersch)
    • Technical setup
      • Aim was to create a tightly closed loop
    • Structure of the Project
      • Case studies
      • Dancers are confronted with scenarios which we have prepared. Their experience is observed and recorded.
      • Mostly improvisational approach
      • Software development and interaction design is informed by these experiences and the knowledge gained
    • How?
      • Motion tracking system
      • Real-time 8ms and "real-space" interface ~1mm resolution
      • Allowing for "control intimacy" (Ummittelbarkeit Steuerung!)
    • Examples
      • Play Bodyscapes excerpt
      • Explain old "other" scenario
        • A sound file is layed in the space along one (or more) chartesian axes.
        • Time is therefore mapped into space
        • The dancer explores these sounds put into space. The position along the sound axis in space of one (or more) of her joints is taken as position (time) in the soundfile.
        • The sound in the soundfile which is at that time coordinate in the file is played back using granular synthesis
          • Explain briefly granular synthesis
        • Example: offline schwitters (mouse on screen and target in hand)
          • Briefly talk about Ursonate
          • Between 1923 and 1932 by Kurt Schwitters
          • Dadaistisches Lautgedicht (youtube)
    • On traces builds on these experiences and takes advantage of the knowledge gained as well as the technical developments made during this previous experiences
      • The project could demonstrate that full-body motion-tracked dance can function successfully as a touchless interface for digital sound production.
      • It could be shown that the dancer's body may extend consistently into a virtual instrument, enabling a very refined and embodied control over the sound
      • We have seen a clear indication of virtual haptic phenomena
      • Dancers reported an enhanced sense of proprioception: the get more aware of the details of their body movements
      • The sounds put into space form and deforms the perception of space by the dancers and the audience.
      • As such the composition of such sound files is tightly connected to choereography. Even, Choreography and movement is strongly determined by the composition of sounds in space.
    • Mostly we used sound files containing sound produced with the voice
      • Why?: Among all instruments the human voice is the most embodied one.
      • Voice is often used as reference in the study of embodiment in music.
      • Not only our vocal apparatus is highly specialised in the production of sounds, but also human audition (Gehör) is highly specialised in apprehending (warnehmen) these.
      • We have a very detailed perception of these kind of sounds, and we readily can associate with them their bodily provenience.
      • We found that these kind of sounds present a very clear bodily affordance, and affordance which "helps" the dances into immersing into the sounds
    • On Traces however employs a different working situation then EGM
      • The dancers and choreographers (Alexander Gottfarb and Anna Nowak) are not uninvolved. They have been involved in the previous EGM project.
      • They have taken part in the explorations and have dealt (sich auseinandersetzen) with the themes and the technologies.
      • The On traces project (or case study) is transdisciplinary articulating dance / choreography and sound art / music composition
      • Shifts the boundaries between divisions of roles between dancers, musicians and developers
      • Composition takes place at all levels it is a collaborative process.
      • Based on the observation that the particular constraints an instrument constitutes for the performer determine its performability, expressivity and embodiment.
      • Instead of presenting the dancers with predefined scenarios or instruments, they (on the basis of their former experiences) have come to us with ideas.
      • The instrument which is developed is understood as a composition of affordances based on the inclinations and capabilities of the performers and the technology used.
      • It makes therefore sense to re-start thinking from the performer, try to avoid pre-given (by the computer musicians) conditions which possibly are not generated or "grown" out from the performers actions
      • Main objective of these explorations is to further artistic research and practice in the fields of computer music composition and performance, as well as in dance and choreography.
    • Central topics
      • haptic / tactile sensations raised by interacting and reacting to sound placed into space
      • empowering the performers to create their own sound scene / stage
      • they can freely fill the space with sound using their own sound, their own voice as sound material
      • It is the body itself which determines where and how the sound is placed into space.
      • Movements and actions de-form sonically the space in which the performance is taking place
    • Sound axis of EGM reinterpreted as "trace"
      • Technically: the captured movement of a tracked object in space (3D coordinates) is recorded
      • This spatial trace is associated with the sonic input recorded from a microphone the performers are wearing.
      • Similarly to the Schwitters scenario in EGM, when in playback mode the 3D position of the object (pen or tracked object on the body) is projected onto the spatial trace and then into the time coordinate into the recorded audio file.
      • The corresponding audio chunk is played by using granular synthesis
    • Play trailer
    • First metaphor we have worked with in On Traces the 2D writing
      • Very clear example of leaving a trace of sound inscribed into space and time.
    • Show examples
      • geometrical calculations
      • size of the sphere
    • Upcoming developments
      • overdubbing
        • Possibility to record back what is been recorded into a newly recorded trace
        • While playing back what has been placed into space and consequently reacting and reinterpreting the stored sound and the associated movement.
        • Together with the possibilty to "erase" previous trace recordings it is urther stage of re-interpretation re-structuring of the stage which would become a dynamically changing space.
      • Feeds back into computer music performance
        • On the computer music side scenarios are not anymore static
        • They are co-performed by an computer music musicians co-deciding overall aspects of composition and form
        • Mainly determined by technical needs (not all can be done by the dancers while performing)
        • This is not seen by the dancers as an "intrusion" from the outside on the contrary they welcome this additional performers and understand him as a equal (ebenwürdiger) partners
        • Until now they have been "hidden" behind the scenes.
        • Dancers have stated to need a co-performing counterpart and interestingly want to have them on stage.
        • They also will lead the development of suitable control methods which are not based on the usual control interfaces (used until now) as faders, but taking advantage of the knowledge they have gained.
        • In a way this "closes the loop".

Rechnungen

Continuation

  • Traces, Gerhard, Marian

    <2017-03-07 Tue 15:00>–<2017-03-07 Tue 16:00>

  • Possible Period

    <2016-01-04 Mon>–<2016-01-17 Sun>

  • Gerhard, traces, diss

    <2016-12-08 Thu 09:00>–<2016-12-08 Thu 13:00>

  • Tanzquartier

    <2016-02-07 Sun>–<2016-02-15 Mon>

    • DONE Tanzquartier Equipment liste [14/14]
      • [X] 3 large speakers
      • [X] 5 small speakers
      • [X] amps (2x4 channels, 60W) + cables (klinke-cinch)
      • [X] 12.5m 8 speaker cables as multicore
      • [X] Mackie 802 mixer
      • [X] Fireface 800, firewire audio (cable 800/800)
      • [X] MOTU interface for pendulum tests (David)
      • [X] MacPro Live-Elektronik
      • [X] 3x Nanokontrol + USB hub (David)
      • [X] tracking system
      • [X] tracking computer + monitor, keyboard and mouse
      • [X] 18 manfrotto superclamps + schwenkköpfe
      • [X] m-audio interface (for tests AIL)
      • [X] network hub + ethernet cables
      • Pack Equipment

        <2016-02-08 Mon 11:00>

      • DONE Get cable from Neuhold

        <2016-02-03 Wed 10:00>–<2016-02-03 Wed 10:15>

      • DONE Prepare multicore 8 channel cable strip (Michele).
      • DONE Prepare cables for the speakers from multicore
  • DONE Prix Ars Electronica
    • TODOS
      1. Cut down the view to a 3 minutes Trailer (Gerhard's)
      2. Photos (Alexander)
      3. CV and Bio with photo (1 page) each has to do it.
      4. Detailed description of the work (2 Pages absolute max), Alexander sends the material we have already.
      5. Technical specs (David)
    • DONE Send email of the above
    • DONE Prepare CV
    • DONE Write Tech specs
    • Text

      In turn, this unique sonic environment is closely linked to the movements, which are traced by one point on their bodies.

      Moreover, in this unique environment, tracking by one point on the performers' bodies, movements retrace past sound paths, replay and reinterpret them, recomposing the link connecting them.

  • Stockholm DtV

    <2016-08-08 Mon>–<2016-08-20 Sat>

    • GRZ -> ARN

      <2016-08-08 Mon 11:30>–<2016-08-08 Mon 15:15>

    • ARN -> GRZ

      <2016-08-21 Sun 18:30>–<2016-08-21 Sun 22:50>

    • Themes

      Would like to work with one or two performers with microphones and two loudspeakers. I would like to integrate "everything" into one "framework"? Is that at all desirable? (No switching means also blurring)

      1. Speed: This need to be rehearsed further in order to understand how to "use" it, which sort of place it has in our explorations
        1. switching and combining with the absolute?
        2. is there a continuous transformation between absolute and speed?

      This I want to test at first

      1. Relative
        1. Combination with absolute to control when what is played?
        2. Differences as relatives?
      2. Incremental
      3. Control parameters different than switches, more a continuous control (fader?) for:
        1. how much relative
        2. if and how much feedback
        3. speed?
    • DONE Finish Reise and rechnungen Stockholm
  • Traces CUBE

    <2016-09-15 Thu>–<2016-09-18 Sun>

    • Open CUBE: Traces

      <2016-09-17 Sat 16:00>

    • DONE TODOS: control tracing complete for cube, headsets, travel costs
    • DONE Test Vicon CUBE for traces, Send text invitation
  • Traces Conversation
    • CANCELLED Look at video of performaces, read Guy' Texts, React
      • State "CANCELLED" from "TODO" [2017-01-19 Thu 11:21]
  • Traces Stockholm
    • Ideas
      1. work on velocity scenario
      2. grain length to speed setting
      3. median filter settings (length) in main gui
      4. min / max age settings / erasing: prioritising last recording is equal to erasure? (we changed the loop direction in traceserv)
      5. distthreshold is to test
      6. maxSpeed mapping on amplitude : interacts with distthres?
      7. Think about GUI development (David)
    • Dates
      • Traces, Gerhard, Experimentalstudio

        <2017-03-10 Fri 09:00>–<2017-03-10 Fri 19:00>

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-24 Mon

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-25 Tue

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-26 Wed

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-27 Thu

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-28 Fri

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-29 Sat

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-30 Sun

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-01 Mon

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-02 Tue

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-03 Wed

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-04 Thu

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-05 Fri

  • Traces Tanzquartier
    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-15 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-16 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-17 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-18 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-19 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-20 Sat>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-21 Sun>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-22 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-23 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-24 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-25 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-26 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-27 Sat>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-28 Sun>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-29 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-30 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-31 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-01 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-02 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-03 Sat>

  • Traces, Gerhard, Experimentalstudio

    <2016-10-31 Mon>–<2016-11-02 Wed>

  • DONE Rerecord Tracking of Stockholm Performance
  • DONE TrMatrix for traces

    Affine transformation Matrix. First application

  • CANCELLED TrMatrix into retrace coupling
  • Traces, Anna, Alex, Gerhard, Skype

    <2016-11-02 Wed 12:30>–<2016-11-02 Wed 13:30>

  • Traces conversation

    Traces – A Conversation

  • Gerhard 17 01 07:

    I am starting this conversation in an attempt to trace the development of our project, which dates back to work in the artistic and scholarly research project Embodied Generative Music (EGM, 2007-10). Back then we worked in the CUBE at IEM in Graz, trying to find ways to ‘link bodily movement to sound’. The title of the project was far more optimistic than the formulation I just used, pointing towards a new form of generative music, which we did not manage to establish. But I think the experiences we made in approaching this (probably utopian) goal were far more important, as they and the related questions still occupy us, almost ten years later.

    What could be established rather quickly in EGM was that motion tracking allows for an extension of the dancers body into computer mediated sound. Simply mapping sound files into the geometry of stage space proved successful in many respects. A quasi-tactile relationship could be established with the sound material, allowing the dancer to become ‘one with the sound’, under certain conditions. Possibilities were discovered that could not be imagined at the outset of the project, which tried to find ways to make a certain type of computer music (generative music) performable.

    One of the most striking experiences for me was to see how dances can make sense of a mind-boggling scenario we have created as one of the many experiments we performed. An artificial delay was introduced between the movement and the sound, i.e. the dancers moved to sound they had created some seconds ago, while creating the sound to dance to in a few seconds, i.e. being in the past, the present, and the future at the same time. As if this did not seem confusing enough, we made the delay time dependent on the speed of movement where slow movement meant a longer delay and fast movement almost no delay. After a short time of adaptation, the dancers seemed to cope successfully with the scenario. My interpretation at the time was that both the dancers and the people witnessing their performance made sense of this situation mainly through their bodies, as their minds would not be able to cope with the complexity of the situation.

    Anna, what are your most striking experiences when you think back to the EGM times? I think it would be nice to collect those from all of us before we look into the process that brought us from EGM to where we are now.

  • Anna 17 01 18:

    Well, the EGM project feels so long time ago, that I really have to think now. It seems to me that the experiences with the EGM scenarios back in 2008 and 2009 have not lost on their “striking- ness” compared to what is striking with our current, Traces, process. One point is that when, while being immersed in the environment of sound the “embodiment" happens, both the people watching and the people (dancers) performing feels that is it “right”, and no one can really explain why. As a performer it gives you a feeling of empowerment and fulfilment, which keeps you hungry for more. You move in the sound, with the sound ,on top of it or with the sound within you. The relation to the sound/music is so tight and immediate, I have never experienced anything EGM feeling in any other context.

    Well maybe David (since I know Alex is just busy preparing his new premiere, happening this Friday) could also tell us his fascinations/striking elements of EGM work?

  • David 17 01 30:

    Thinking back to EGM, the most striking moment was for me, as for Gerhard, what we called the "delay scenario". To experience how you, Anna and Alex, could interact with the this scenario was for me one of the most surprising points in the whole project. And it is still an experience which generates questions which are hard to grasp.

    Looking back now, I could say that in developing the EGM scenarios we aimed at producing situations which are "simple", in the sense that these incorporated and put to test what we thought would be essential aspects of the connection between bodily movement and sound. Simple in the sense that we could formulate these situations in uncomplicated algorithms and explain them to someone without relying on a deep technical understanding. Most importantly, these would establish a link between body and sound so "direct" that we could at every moment reconstruct or explain, from a technical point of view, what was happening and why, thus eventually leaving the focus on the questions which were more interesting to us: how did you do it? how did you get there? how was this situation changing you perception? etc. Somehow, I think now, that the idea we (we programmers) were hiding in the back of our heads was that the directness of control was a prerequisite of how we intended embodiment, the extension of the body into the sound, as Gerhard puts it "to become one" with the sound. We thought that this kind of relative simplicity and directness of the interaction was the substrate which would offer the right affordance to grow your body into the sound.

    Methodologically this helped us to work on reduced aspects, to focus on isolated questions: I think ideally we wanted to proceed analytically, somehow trying to break down the complex problem into its constituents (the scenarios). Which is of course a perfectly reasonable strategy.

    The moment I experienced the "delay scenario" explored by you, which was one of the last experiments we did in the EGM project (and which was a kind of an "error" if I recall correctly), I remember being struck by the quality of interaction we were seeing. That scenario presented a situation which was so radically different from everything we have seen before in the project that it seemed to break with everything. I understand now that part of this being struck was that this scenario put the assumptions I've described before were put into question.

    First, the scenario was far more complex then any other we had tested before."Complex" as opposed to the "simplicity" I've tried to define above. It was striking that a relatively small change in the algorithm we formulated transformed a scenario which was very controlled in its "directness" into something which was very complex, mind-boggling as Gerhard said. This might seem an obvious observation and something that we (at least Gerhard and I) have experienced in many different contexts: even a small change in a simple set of rules of an algorithm have the potential to produce unexpected and unforeseeable results. Still, experiencing this so dramatically made me recognise actually how thin the border defining a controlled situation can be, how delicate ad not at all stable such a situation can be. And moreover, how interesting this instability is.

    Further, in some inexplicable way, you could cope with this complexity: a situation which was difficult to grasp rationally or analytically, in which there was no certainty that at one specific input would correspond one and only one specific output, but rather, the sensibility of the system would induce variations of the outcome depending on the whole history of events preceding that moment, thus making every movement unique and non-repeatable. In a sense the scenario had all the characteristics which we didn't want: it wasn't simple nor it did present a clear and direct correlation between movement and sound. But apparently it possessed a sort of coherence which you could follow bodily and while interacting with it, generate and be part of very engaging moments. So, maybe our striving for reduction to essentials, simplicity and directness (in the sense I tried to delineate before) was missing the point? This kind of complexity didn't seem to be a problem for you.

    Our background idea was that the precision and the stability of the control you would be provided by "our" system would be the starting point for you to be able to embody the sound, was suddenly also put in question. In a way, I think we implicitly thought of the entire situation in terms of a traditional musician / instrument relationship where virtuosity is directly proportional to the detail of control musicians would exert on the instrument. But, in the "delay scenario", I would say that you were not really in control (how could you?) of the details of what was happening. It seemed that you continuously oscillated between action and reaction in very small time intervals. This struggle you were in and which was clearly perceivable from the outside, this friction between two elements which were fluctuating between synchronicity and conflict, this was actually the interesting part. So, another question is if this kind of (explicit or implicit) "control" is the right paradigm for what we looking for?

    Gerhard pointed out that the EGM project was after a new form of generative music, in which the form of the composition would be embodied by the dancers' movements, an Utopian aim that was not achieved during the project. Right now, re-imagining the experience of the "delay scenario", I think that study was the closest to that idea. That struggle, that particular kind of fluctuating interaction can be seen as the core of a generative process in which body movement and sound are connected as sort of "equal" elements or partners. Gerhard, can you relate to that?

    In view of this considerations, the definition of Embodiment we have given in the project, as the extension of the bodily proprioception into the sound, becomes also problematic. I think that the idea involves the dissolution of specific qualities of one element (the sound producing instrument, the computer music system) in order to make it permeable to the (total) control of the performer. In the "delay scenario" instead, both actors retained their "character", there was not extending of the one into the other. There was sensibility to the others' action and reaction, friction, but no dissolution. I think this is central to this scenario.

    Interestingly, it seems to me that in the "Traces" there have been analogous (in words unexpressed) thoughts. Even if from a different perspective, we started from a situation in which we aimed at a very detailed control by the performers' over the sound output; the computer music system had to be tailored towards accomplishing specific tasks in the best way possible (the first performance in Vienna). But, in the last developments of the project, it seems to me that we are moving towards more "uncontrolled" terrains, engaging more and more with the very specific qualities of the tools we have developed, reacting to those making them central in the performance rather then eliminating them. I'm thinking of the "feedback studies" or of the continuous space filling (and the consequent uncontrollable sonic space) in which you somehow are giving away part of your control in order to elicit a specific reaction from the system which you can then use as a generator for new movements or forms in general. Somehow there are similarities to the experience of the "delay scenario" in this sense. Alex, what do you think? Can you see what I mean?

    Somehow I would be curious to go back to that "delay" experience now, with the knowledge we have accumulated from the works we have done after and see how we would perceive it now.

  • Notes

    searching for the excess of the perticularity of the teol of the meadium

    incompressibility of the thing itself, of the medium

    the incorporeality of the medium had an effect on the possibilities. there is less responsibility so less obstacles in thinking and developing _>

    digitality is a process material. Is a material which is not static it exsists only as a process.

    in egm talking about exension of the body into the sound (interface) mean to annulate the interface. which is the bad thing, the technology, the inhuman, humanise it in destroying it.

    irreducibility of precessual materiality. of dynamical systems.

Oboe

Michael, Gerhard, Stockholm 02.09.2014

  • space is not cartesian
  • Interesting difference with respect to the other space we are dealing with
  • Means that we have to find ways to construct space out if the RELATIONS emerging from the data structure
  • The are ways, paths between the different objects (or points) in that space that structure the space.
  • There is a "time" needed to walk these paths that also determines how difficult or easy a specific path is to go.
  • in a radical vision the path actually constructs the two points, rather than the path is constructed by the difference between the points
  • a sort of phase space were different attractors reside structuring and deforming the space
  • composition would explore this space, starting from a point and "looking at" which path would arise
  • data set is interesting because it comes out of a "bodily informed" catalogue. Interesting because it is "different" and because it already structures the space of possibilities which as a composer am I confronted with.
  • the data set encloses aspects which would are difficult to "get" is I'm not a musician. aspects typically relevant in an improvisation setting
  • dealing with this space as a composer leads to a modification in the way a piece is composed. rather than concentrating on a merely "perceptual" outcome (the melody of the moldau) there is a second "meta"-layer on which I am operating (maybe always the case in composition?)
  • How can this layer be made accessible for the audience?
  • It should be made accessible as actually the relationship between the two layers is the most interesting thing.
  • can there be a sort of visualisation that is running parallel to the piece in a way representing graphically the way, the "path" the musician is "walking"
  • one idea: one dimensional visualisation using colors blue for easy red for difficult
  • other idea: draw figures representing the possible "next" points I (musician) could "go to" in relation to the difficulty (distance function) to get to them from the point I am now.
  • radical differences: to "cancel out" from the live-produced sound the sound of the "right" point, only deviations are sonified or visualized

EEG

DONE Tasks [2/2]

  • [X] Perl scripts to SC Get pearl scripts to work
    • jittering of data
  • [X] Drawing algorithm (Michael)

Answer mail Michael

Obj2Image

  • Send to Luc
  • Luc, Skype, obj2view

    :ID: 6d329d7d-1e3c-404a-8238-e4d8a1f61dd3

    <2015-06-22 Mon 14:00>–<2015-06-22 Mon 16:00>

Neuro

Tasks [5/8]

  • [X] Rebody Installation version video
  • [X] Rebody better performance version (at the moment it's only 640x480)
  • [ ] Do profile in the RC better
  • [ ] Name for the second case study
  • [X] Render video from the lansner presentation. Get the SC Patch from Gerhard. neuro command line: ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/spikesnoosc200s16.txt 3306 0 200000 300 36 13 0.375667 0.000000 -7.070866 3.086567 185.232315 0.000000 5.511811 1.468504 1.791435 1.496465 1.772441 0.307744 0.206519 2.310104 1 1 0 1 1
  • [ ] Copy the page to the viewer into to lansner and hen relink to dynamical systems on my page.
  • [X] Description of the drawing agorithm,
  • [X] SVG Export in gui
  • DONE Export two channel version of Bremen
  • DONE Reflections case study 1
  • DONE SVG Export!!!

Spikes

  • Insert into recordings?
  • Correlation?
    • Gerhard's mail

ndViewer

  • Correlation, read in data, sliding window
  • Fill in minicolumns
  • DONE Export video with definite time relations
  • Prepare text export positions
  • Rattel to osx
  • Enhance ndView for osx
    • Parameter GUI
  • Do Forces fade out method
  • Description of the n-dimensional Viewer

    In the project "Transpositions" we are dealing with large data sets especially those in which several variables are stored in dependence of one (matrix i.e. a 2-dimensional tensor) or generally more independent variables (resulting in a 3 or more dimensional matrices, commonly defined as tensors). For example, the data in the Lansner case study, we have dealt with large data sets in which the dependent variables are the potentials of cells in a neural network the independent variable being time, resulting therefore in data sets of the form of a matrix (2-dimensional).

    When dealing with this kind of data one of the first questions is how to look or "represent" this data. The interest lies in looking at how the dependent variables vary an change with respect to the independent variables or in relation to other dependent variables in the set. That means that, despite the fact the the data is stored in a 2-dimensional matrix format, we are actually dealing with not just 2 or 3 dependent variables (whose development would be easier to represent or imagine in an cartesian space), but many many more. That is, in general we are dealing with spaces of variables that are more that 3-dimensional, n-dimensional.

    Mostly the approach to the problem is to find ways in order reduce the dimensionality of the space considered using various tools commonly taken from statistical analysis. This analysis techniques focus on some computing some quantities from the data which are considered relevant to the present study, necessarily concentrating on finding out specific aspects about the data and leaving out or separating these from other aspects considered not relevant, thus reducing the quantity of information delivered by the data.

    It is important to note that this approach works under the assumption that the non relevant quantities have no influence on the relevant ones calculated and looked at. This assumption is of course a very narrow filter on the data and in a way "external" to the data considered, but of course influenced and grows out by all previous studies conducted on similar sets.

    It is therefore possible to suppose that there are aspects of the data which are not (or cannot) be seen through the lens of previously defined assumptions and analysis methods. Thus, it seems legit to take a step back and try to look at the whole picture delivered by the data, defining it as a whole and unseparable system. But a way has to be found in order to make this picture perceivable as in general, n-dimensional spaces and structures can be very hard for us to perceive or imagine.

    I refer here to "structures" in the sense of sequence of data points which in general draw a path of points or states of the system in an n-dimensional space and having clearly defined geometrical relationship with each other.

  • Approach

    The n-dimensional Viewer tries to approach this problem, employing a 2-dimensional view of n-dimensional structures or state paths.

    The Viewer is based on the following ideas:

    1. The viewer uses the geometrical relations between all the points defining the structure or the path.
    2. The viewer represents one datum (or vertex) in the n-dimensional space as one dot on the 2-dimensional plane connected with lines to the other points.
    3. The geometrical distances between the points in the 2D plane is dependent from the distances of the data points in the set.
      • The distance function between data points can be for example an euclidean distance function or any other smooth and differentiable function that associates 2 n-D vectors to one scalar value (one number).
    4. This dependence is exact, i.e. the distances from one point to all the other in the 2D plane of the viewer has the same value as the distance in the data for the point(s) which are in the exact center of the plane. The points further away from the center are connected to the other points with distances which are still dependent from the data point, but this dependence is less and less strict as farther the point is from the center.
      • This choice has been made as generally it could be not possible to solve the problem of placing the points such that all distances between all the points are exact.
      • As a consequence we have chosen to prefer local over global exactness.
      • A second consequence is that it could be necessary to "navigate" or manipulate the structure, placing different points in the center of the viewer and observing the how the net of distances changes accordingly.
    5. Finding the appropriate positions for each point in the plane given only their relative distances is in general a difficult problem to solve which has no univocal solutions and which has no analytical (in the sense of a mathematical closed formulation) solution, but has to be solved numerically. In the present case to find a solution of the problem we use a dynamical system. Each point in the plane is considered a point mass exerting a force an all other points pushing them at a distance to it equal to the distance value we are targeting. This force is weaker when the point is farther from the center. When this system is simulated numerically it eventually converges to a configuration which represents as exactly as possible to the set of distances we have put in.
    6. An important thing to note is that, being the force acting between the masses independent from rotations, i.e. the force depends only on the distance, the resulting figure or solution is invariant under rotations around the center of the plane.
  • Force Function

    The force acting between the points-masses in the viewer, is dependent only on the distance. The force between two point-masses in dependence of the target distance the two should keep is repulsive if their current distance is less then the target and attractive if it is greater and exactly zero if the distance equals the target.

    The force formula can be written as:

    f = (x - l - hrd)pwf - xpwf

    where:

    1. f is the force: if positive it's repulsive that is the point-mass is pushed away from the exerting mass
    2. x is the distance between the point-masses
    3. l is the "target" distance
    4. hrd is the "hardness" parameter always > 1.0; the parameter control how hard the boundary between the repulsive and attractive regions is; greater values are used for more soft boundaries
    5. pwf is and exponent typically < -1.0 which controls how steep the force function in dependence of the distance is.

    Here a few plots to clarify the effect of the various parameters:

Meetings

  • Stockholm, Neuro

    :ID: 0764e970-e014-42a4-b07f-bce74e72e414

    <2015-03-23 Mon>–<2015-03-26 Thu> KTH at 2015-03-16

    • Travel
      • DONE Dienstreiseantrag

        :ID: 2909cfb5-7535-47da-a625-52666d2a526b

    • TODOs
      1. Only one polygon
      2. Mute on / off lines
      3. Michael gives two time ranges then render for this two ranges all 16
      4. Render out positions, and correlations?
  • Stockholm, Neuro

    <2015-06-08 Mon>–<2015-06-10 Wed>

  • Neuro Gerhard, Visualisation, Iko
  • Neuro Gerhard Wien
  • Gerhard, Michael, Skype

    :ID: 029c235b-cd83-4d9e-864f-bc5a3e6440bc

    <2015-05-19 Tue 13:00>–<2015-05-19 Tue 15:00>

Bremen

<2015-05-07 Thu>–<2015-05-09 Sat>

:ID: 252f18d2-f98b-4314-9adb-2de688a63037

  • Presentation

    <2015-05-08 Fri 14:30>–<2015-05-08 Fri 15:00>

    • Video Presentation

      <2015-05-08 Fri 18:00>–<2015-05-08 Fri 18:30>

    • Fact Sheet Dynamical System

      The system was implemented as a 2-dimensional view of N-dimensional structures.

      The dynamical system is composed by:

      1. A number of point ( = dimensionless) masses.
      2. A set of rules ( = forces) interconnecting them.

      The masses are bound to move on a 2-dimensional plane.

      The rules are implemented such that masses tend to organise themselves in a network in which the relative distances to each other on the plane are equal to, or at least are a good approximation of a pre-given set of "target distances" of the points defining the N-dimensional structure.

      The forces between the masses are formulated as smooth functions of mass to mass distance. The force is repulsive (i.e. positive, the mass is pushed away from each other) when their distance is too small and attractive (i.e. negative, masses are drawn nearer to each other) if their distance is too big with respect to the target value. The force is zero when the mass is at the "target distance".

      The forumla for the force f is:

      f(x) = m*((x - td + 0.00001 + hrd)pwf - hrdpwf)

      where: x = the distance of the masses on the plane m = the mass mass (weight) td = the "target distance" 0.00001 = is a small offset to prevent infinite terms when pwf is < 0.0 hrd = "hardness" factor: if > 1.0 the repulsive part of the force is less strong pwf = exponent, typically < 0.0. Defines how the force function depends on the distance.

      If pwf < 0.0, the force can be seen as an inverted and shifted gravitational-like force.

      The term "-hrdpwf" shifts the force "down" towards the attractive half-plane when x > td.

      In the present case, the "target distances" are set to be the correlation values between neurons or chosen groups of neurons in the neuronal model considered. Number of neurons (of groups of) and grouping in hypercolumns are read for the input data file.

  • Travel
    • Graz->Fra->Bremen

      <2015-05-07 Thu 14:05>–<2015-05-07 Thu 17:45>

    • Bremen->Fra->Graz

      <2015-05-09 Sat 14:25>–<2015-05-09 Sat 18:10>

Stockholm

  • Travel
  • Gerhard, Michael, Preparation

    :ID: 0fdb9e13-a409-44f2-9416-ec18d4ebd60c

    <2015-05-22 Fri 10:30>–<2015-05-22 Fri 12:00>

  • Gerhard, Michael, Preparation

    :ID: 62527afe-dcd6-4d71-9cf7-0a0adfa8e8c0

    <2015-06-03 Wed 10:30>–<2015-06-03 Wed 12:00>

  • Graz -> Stockholm

    <2015-06-07 Sun 18:35>

  • Seminar / presentation

    <2015-06-10 Wed 09:00>

    • Themes
      • Using dynamical systems means to give away control to discover things which possibly could not be otherwise discovered.
      • Different from transformation
    • To dos
      1. Falten
  • Stockholm -> Graz

    <2015-06-10 Wed 16:50>

Transpositions Klausur

:ID: 0227b97d-9409-43c2-adcb-64713c1d1852

<2015-08-10 Mon>–<2015-08-12 Wed>

  • Behaviour Notes

    Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment. It is the response of the system or organism to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.

    The definition of Behaviour could be generalised to: > > A Behaviour is a sequence of states of a dynamical system.

    Quite similar to the definition of orbit then, which is an ordered subset of the state space from some initial state.

    > The we could introduce new subclasses: > > Temporal Behaviour isa Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. time > for all the concepts already in this branch of TEDDY > e.g. "Oscillation"

    These would be topologically equivalent orbits, I guess.

    > Parameter-dependent Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. specific parameters > e.g. "Bifurcating Behaviour"

    Mathematically meaning a topological change in the in the phase portrait then.

    > Environment-dependent Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. changes in the environment > e.g. "Stable Behaviour", "Switching Behavior"

    Merriam-Webster dictionary: `anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation'

    Behaviour as a specific defining characteristic of an organism or of an identity which exhibits a sort of intention.

    Intention organism

    behaviour in the case of the neuro thing

    Behaviour is what interests me.

    In particular I'm interested in behaviour as a a defining characteristic of an Identity.

    That is the in which how does a system evolving thought in time behave in such way that it can be recognised as one entity having the identity defined by that particular behaviour. In which way does this particular behaviour construct (in our perception) emerge as identity segregated from others exhibiting different or similar or equal behaviour.

    identity the distinguishing character or personality of an individual

    complexity

    Analysis of the single elements of a systems fails to explain or better give a glimpse of the overall behaviour. Another point of view is needed. One that accepts te comple

    Analytical approach (both in the sense of a personal stance towards experience and in the mathematical sense of being able to express a problem in a closed form in terms of variables, know functions and constants)

    Versus "numerical approach" in which thing have to be simulated, that is the solution is not known. Each step has to be take in the sequence of changes defining of the system.

    The moment when a "system" becomes perceptible as "other" in contrast to "function". Other in the sense that it exhibits a behaviour that presupposes some "intention". And reaction to stimuli.

    Interaction. Some grey zone between predictable behaviour and unpredictable (the extreme of which being noise).

    Purpose: the prediction of the future from the past belongs to the theory of causality; the determination of the past from the present belongs top the theory of purpose.

    Mathematical formulation(s)

    Behaviour as a perceptual quality like colour etc.

    The neuro dynamical system is used as a problem solver, not as an analysis tool. Which I image would be if I dynamical system was designed exposing similar behaviour as the analysed system, ore some sub-system with simpler behaviours "resonating" at a specific eigen-behaviour of the analysed system

    Look at the system as a whole: example if one would focus on observing one neuron cutting it out of the whole system one would not grasp the

  • Behaviour Notes
    1. General. Start with the book
      • Behaviour is a vague and ambiguous term and is used in differently in various contexts (mathematics, physics, philosophy, social sciences etc.).
      • The main problem to me seems to be that it is difficult to speak of Behaviour as a thing in itself. As opposed to "texture" or "figure" for which one can say "this is a figure / texture" it seems difficult to say "this is a behaviour".
      • Behaviour appears to be always connected to a "thing" to something, an entity or a person which "behaves" in some way.
      • Geometry of Behaviour, this is the Behaviour I'm referring to when speaking of it. And also this book, which deals apparently with behaviour, does not contain any clear definition of behaviour.
      • In this book and in my perspective, which is mostly a strict mathematical or geometrical point of view, behaviour can be generally defined as a sequence of states an entity (system) undergoes in time. Behaviour is change, it's he change of an entity with respect of its surrounding. This sequence being generally thought of paths a entity's (system) state undergoes through time.
      • This definition is still very vague and general, but looking at it more closely, behaviour has some characteristics or qualities which define it a bit better:
        1. it is well-defined, in a mathematical sense, meaning:
          1. it is smooth and differentiable, there are no discontinuities or "jumps" or breakings or sudden changes
          2. it is deterministic (even if chaotic in general) and predictable, if one know the starting condition with infinite precision
      • By this tentative definition Behaviour is an "abstract object" or construct which is build from "change" or variation. The kind of "change" being the characteristic property of the behaviour being observed.
      • For being able to observe Behaviour two things are needed: a kind of space and time (the independent variable).
        1. One could see a similarity between this notion of Behaviour and the notion of Sound Object. Now we can say "This is a Sound" even without really intending the objects which produces the sound, but really the "object" sound itself. and Sound is an "object" a perceptible object which is in fact produced by a sequence of state changes of an object (a bell or the membrane of a loudspeaker), displacements, oscillations period harmonic or chaotic of on object in our space. There is no problem in saying this is a sound even if a sound is always connected to a physical object. In fact one could see Sound as a particular kind of Behaviour, Behaviour being the more general term for it.
      • For example: an Harmonic Oscillator exhibits a particular behaviour, which can be described in many ways. This Behaviour is very characteristic and recognisable (mathematically as well as perceptually) distinguishable from many others. The "changes" of the entity (system) an harmonic oscillator are called periodic oscillation. And Period Oscillations ARE a Behaviour, clear, recognisable, perceptible. This behaviour is common to all harmonic oscillator systems and it is the fundamental characteristic of this particular class of systems. from the pther side if you look at the behaviour of an unknown system, that is how it changes in time, and see periodic oscillations, then you would know that this is an harmonic oscillator.
      • Seen this way Behaviour is not only attaches, linked to, or "the behaviour of" something. It is:
        1. a Perceptible quantity. A sine tone is a Sound.
        2. a defining quality of systems or better entities. If there is a perceptible behaviour then there is an entity (or a system). (it is not necessary true though that all entities have a behaviour).
      • Exhibiting a clear behaviour a set constituted of interconnected elements becomes "one", an entity, as a the system build of two masses connected by a spring becomes AN harmonic Oscillator. Looking at just one of the elements of the system in order to understand or describe it is not anymore sufficient One has to see the "whole Picture".
        1. Think of a swarm of birds changing shapes, evolving and dancing in the air. Now imagine to look at only one of the birds in the swarm. Its movements would be "strange", kind of erratic, "senseless". When put again in company of its fellows the movement makes again "sense". It is necessary to see the whole picture in order to have a chance to grasp it.
    2. How do I use it
      • In my own artistic praxis my interest lies in the composition of behaviour. That is in the designing of sound-producing or manipulating active and reactive (to input) systems.
      • It is particular interesting to me such kind of systems, in particular those with an active behaviour. When audified, (that is the displacements of their constituting elements in time are interpreted as sound pressure values), not only is the Behaviour of the system perceptible as such (though not recognisable as belonging to a formerly known class, but maybe similar to some of them). In further seems to infer the action and reaction of an entity in the background.
      • An kind haptic quality is injected into the sound unfolding as if it were the result of a material object or entity with some kind of "intention".
      • In this line of work a do "generate" behaviour, in a sense out of nothing, out of no purpose (useless machines) if only the possibiliy to interact with the system.
    3. How to use it in the Project
      • We did not use it up until now.
      • What we did was to use a specific quality of systems having an active behaviour. This kind of systems can in fact have a "purpose" or an "intention".
      • The behaviour of the dynamical system we used in the ndViewer had the intention or purpose to solve a problem: the problem of placing n masses on a plane given their relative distances.
      • Having assumed that the data at present is the result of the change of a dynamic system, one could search for sequences in the data defining a recognisable behaviour. Reconstruct then this behaviour resulting into a map defining a particular space. This map would could then ba the basis for visualisation and / or audification.
      • Having the reconstructed behaviour it would be even possible to generate data from it and again oppose it to the real data.

    One possibility would be to look for specific bahviaours

    • Look at the whole is necessary.

    Active passive behaviour

    "It is A behaviour" what does this mean?

    Part vs whole

    Behaviour I know can be on different objects or systems can have similar behaviour. T

    When the Behaviour can be described or in some way represented it could become an "object" which has a specificity for which can actually say "this is a Behaviour" (example of the lorentz attractor pp 380 onwards).

    Post-medium: not more transparent. Krauss: medium becomes obejct when I use it, when I interact with it.

    Other, is a reflection of the self.

  • Notes

    Why is it a strategical decision?

    How do we want to work as a team in the future? How do we bring our works together?

    • Texture

      Relation between texture and figure.

      Absence of temporal qualities and development. But there is change over time. They change constantly remaining the same.

      It is a very general and broad concept. Almost everything could be a texture.

      Undirected open organisation of things.

      poses the condition for emergence of structures in perception.

      Pattern is a connected term.

      there is a space with elements on relations (distances) between these elements.

      composing a texture is as the process formulated that organises the elements.

      interesting the interaction with the visual counterpart of textures.

      texture extends in some space

      texture is not a narration, the history is created by the viewer, the texture just offers the possibility, the space for it.

      Textures can be immersive as well as possible being completely in the background.

      there is complementarity between spatial and temporal aspects of textures

      the lecture process leaves a path by which the extend and structure of the texture.

      Composing with or / and against the strategies of perception.

    • Michael
      • Fragment

        Fragment as connected to the whole is also a reflection of the whole

        is also project in sense that it need completion.

      • Proto-Object

        2 spaces graphematic space and representative space equals esperimental and scientific (wissenschaftlich) there are connected but work different

        proto-objetcs are in the graphematical space, but already more advanced then epistemic objetcs, but refuses to be representative.

      • Together

        are proto-objects fragments?

      • Exposition
      • Notes

        this is all constructed! not based out of the praxis. The meaning and relevance of the praxis is constructed a posteriori in order to creat spefici images of the work been done.

        This is a mnipulative stance towards us and the audience

        Not out of the experience and praxis, but out of "polotical" thoughts.

        Say what has to be done and how ind order to achieve something.

        Says how things are to be interpreted.

        All the rest has been relativised.

        What has beed produced by him? Or really done for the project?

        "I want to see some specific thing" Ok, how?

  • Graz -> Stockholm

    <2015-08-10 Mon 11:30>–<2015-08-10 Mon 15:15>

  • Stockholm -> Graz

    <2015-08-13 Thu 16:50>–<2015-08-13 Thu 20:35>

Todos

  1. x Non linear distance to correlation mapping
  2. x Fade out of force
  3. x Alpha to group area mapping
  4. x correct error line in only points
  5. recording
  6. x Ranges: particulary frame change Hz
  7. correlation function
  8. x Error 81
  9. x lines drawing threshold
  10. previous version with folding
    1. c1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c1data.txt 4182 0 200000 503 20 9 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 2.067716 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c1data.txt 2452 0 200000 503 20 2 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
    2. c2
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 200000 503 20 2 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 200000 503 22 1 0.261410 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 4842.164062 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 100000 503 20 2 0.202809 -1.039371 -1.496063 1.411811 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 3.272441 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 100000 503 20 2 0.202809 -2.078740 -1.023623 1.296063 4842.164062 3.149606 100.000000 4.640945 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
  11. obj export

hypercolumns piece

  • Text
    • introduction

      The composition series "hypercolumns" uses data from neural networks simulations which have been computed at the Lansner lab - Computational neuroscience and Neurocomputing Laboratory at the Royal Institute of Technology KTH in Stockholm. In the context of the artistic research project "Transpositions" (project Team: Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab, David Pirrò) founded by the PEEK Program of the Austrian Science Found this data has been reinterpreted and transposed to be building material for artistic works. This composition is one of them

    • composition

      The data has a complex structure of neurons organised in two overlapping groups of minicolumns and hypercolumns spanning the whole network. The data of one of the hypercolumns of the network has been analysed with methods of phase space reconstruction in the attempt to find, visualise and sonify attractor behaviours hidden in the data. A four dimensional representation of the attractor has been chosen: on pages 1 to 6 projections of the attractor on different planes can be seen. The evolution of the data has been projected on 4 differen axes producing thus obtaining four curves. The miniatures consist of extracts of those curves.

    • miniatures

      In the following pages there are 15 miniatures. As said before these consist of 4 graphs (from top to bottom).

      Each miniature should be played by one instrument and should be ca. 1 minute long. The 6 vertical axes mark segments of ca. 10 second length.

      Each of the four graph should be interpreted as one of the following playing parameters:

      1. Tempo: ranging from 90 at the bottom of the graph to 140 bpm at the top. The middle roughly corresponding to 120 bpm.
      2. Dynamics: ranging from pp at the bottom of the graph to sfz at the top. The middle corresponding to mf.
      3. Legato / Staccato: ranging from the shortest possible notes at the bottom to a continuously played note at the top.
      4. Sound modification: ranging from normal played tone at the bottom to modified tone at the top. Depending on the possibilities of the instrument and of the player various types of modifications can be chosen. For example, for strings the player can choose over or underpressure. For clarinet the player can either use multiphonics of singing while playing. For horn player con use dampers. The player has the freedom of choice, but the modification should be clearly perceivable.

      The choice of which one of these 4 parameters is associated to which one of the 4 graphs is left to the interpreter. But all parameters have to be used.

      Generally the interpreter should play only one pitch. It is allowed for the interpreter to change pitches in the regions marked by a thick bar at the top of the page. At the end of these transitions the pitch should again remain fixed.


    • This composition has been realised during a residency at the Institute for Music & Acoustics at the ZKM, Karlsruhe in August 2015.

Continuous Reconfiguration

  • Raspi solution
    • Configuration
      • password

        tp/reconfiguration-01

      • keyboard und mouse

        are disabled. This is done by adding the line SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", DRIVERS=="usbhid", ACTION=="add", ATTR{authorized}="0" on the beginning of the file /etc/udev/rules.d/99-com.rules to edit: sudo nano /etc/udev/rules.d/99-com.rules

      • startup

        Autostart executes the script reconfiguration.sh in the home/pi directory. modify this file for setting which file is played by the omxplayer (video player). Currently the player loop the longer file reconfigurations030500.mov. Anyway, the other, shorter file is also in the pi. Both files are on the home/pi folder.

      • ip address

        The raspberry takes a static ip address: 192.168.0.10 (255.255.255.0). This behaviour can be changes by editing the file /etc/dhcpcd.conf and comment or modify the lines: interface eth0 static ipaddress=192.168.0.10/24 static routers=192.168.0.1 static domainnameservers=192.168.0.1 8.8.8.8

      • HDMI output

        The omxplayer is set to play the video on the HDMI output that is set to 1920x1080 60 Hz

      • Startup Bug?

        It seems that sometimes the raspberry refuses to boot if power is plug in and the HDMI cable or/and keyboard or mouse are attached. The solution is to plug in power and AFTER connect the HDMI cable. This is the reason for the numbers on the case: these should indicate the order of plugging. (They are not optimal, maybe we should for something different that works better visually. Or just describe the issue and the order of plugging in the certificate/notes: probably the best idea).

  • DONE ,,, Get raspi to work and send to Gerhard

COMPASS

Skizzo

  • IBAN & BIC

    IBAN IT50 D076 0102 2000 0007 6186 964 BIC BPPIITRRXXX

  • DONE Werkvertrag Skizzo
  • DONE Check with skizzo dates, persons, rooms for Autumn at COMPASS
    • Possible Dates

      Closed meetings, only COMPASS

      1. 13-14.10
      2. 22-23-24-25.11 (Collaboration)
      3. 15-16.12
    • Rooms
      • Analysis (also remote)
        1. 8x4 meters (20-30 persons)
        2. Video projector
        3. PC to projector (PDF presentation)
        4. loudspeakers (1, probably only for remote: to check)
      • Collaboration (only for presents)
        1. bigger ca. 80 persons
        2. projection
        3. loudspeakers (2)
    • Persons
      1. Mallot
      2. Oleg, Denissov
  • DONE Skizzo for times in analysis meeting in October

CERN Presentation Room 892-1-D20

<2016-10-13 Thu 14:00>–<2016-10-13 Thu 15:00>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation

    <2016-09-30 Fri 09:30>–<2016-09-30 Fri 11:00>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation

    <2016-10-11 Tue 11:00>–<2016-10-11 Tue 12:30>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation ??

    <2016-10-12 Wed 09:30>–<2016-10-12 Wed 11:00>

  • Gerhard Genf arrival

    <2016-10-13 Thu 11:50>

  • Notes Gerhard

    Die Ziele des Besuchs sind

    • neue Verbündete unter den Wissenschaftlern zu finden
    • mehr Verständnis und damit hoffentlich Support für unsere Arbeit bekommen
    • die Casestudy weiter zu präzisieren
    • Erfahrung mit dem Betrieb / den Menschen zu machen
    • den Besuch zu absolvieren um darauf verweisen zu können (gegenüber FWF und Arts@CERN)

    Begründung warum wir mit dem CERN arbeiten

    • im TP-Team gibt es Interesse an Teilchenphysik
    • Teilchenphysik pass gut in das breite Spektrum unserer Casestudies
    • Forschung am CERN ist ein für uns besonders interessantes gesellschaftliches und kulturelles Phänomen

    Warum wir mit COMPASS arbeiten

    • Untersuchung des Spins ist eine besonders interessante Herausforderung
    • weil schwer zu verstehen oder vorzustellen, sehr abstract
    • private Kontakte existierten

    Wie wir vorgehen sollten

    • möglichst auf einer Metabene bleiben
    • nicht Resultate sondern Ansätze präsentieren
    • unsere Praxis der Transposition als alternative Denkrichtung vorstellen
    • zeigen, warum Daten für uns künstlerisch interessant sind

    Was wir konkret zeigen sollten

    • alle anderen Casestudies ansatzweise vorstellen
    • besonders die Neuro-Videos
    • DA TA rush
    • alles kurz und bündig, möglichst keine Details, nur auf Nachfrage

    Wie wir schließen sollten

    • Kontaktwünsche artikulieren ("weitere Giulios”)
    • Gespräche am selben Tag in der Kaffeepause, bei einem Abendessen möglich
    • geographische Synergien suchen (Leute in London, Graz, Stockholm, Triest?)
    • wenn es Interesse gibt, dann reisen wir auch zu neuen potentiellen Partnern
    • Zusammenarbeit im Frühjahr 2017 mit Arts@CERN ankündigen
    • Abschlussevent ankündigen
  • Notes

    Our aims:

    1. Raise awareness of towards our research
    2. Provoke reactions
    3. Find new interesting people willing to engage end possibly collaborate.
    4. make contact with researchers and experience the environment.
    5. we want to remain on "higher ground"
      • even if we have already worked with the COMPASS data, we do not want to present our works as "results" or "findings", which would probably be the case due to the context of the presentation and the expectations (is that a theme we could rise at the beginning?)

    Structure:

    1. Play neuro video right at the beginning
    2. Who are we
      • where do we work, our context, University institute etc.
      • presentation of Gerhard and David (short with background)
      • (artistic research? this may be a bit tough at this point but could work as "provocation" in this context)
    3. What do we now
      • The transpostions project (introduce Michael briefly)
      • Why are data interesting from our artistic point of view?
      • We use data as a "material" out of which to produce artistic works.
      • No representations, sonification or visualisation of the data. which would be functional to a certain interpretation of it.
      • Explain briefly the first video (neuro data etc.)
      • We are attempting alternative perspectives on data "extracted" from consolidated research (processes)
      • The aim is to produce art works in the hope that these could bring to light different views on the phenomena which could possibly further or at least influence research praxis.
    4. Play DA TA trailer
      • shortly explain with which data we have worked with for the exhibition.
      • The exhibition was intended as a research event in itself
      • mention Symposium + interventions?
    5. Why are we at CERN?
      • In our process (DA TA being part of it) we discovered that we could regard our praxis as a sort "destabilisation" of the ideal that data as stable, transparent and inactive component of the research process
      • Data seems as much being an active component in the research process (in that it "influences" the experimental results) as being affected by it (the experimental apparatus is constructed on the very scientific assumptions it wants to answer)
      • And therefore it's interesting for us to better understand and focus in our work on this complex relationship of the data and its context (theoretical, technical as well as social etc.)
      • From this perspective CERN and COMPASS are highly structured, specialised and compartmentalised contexts are for us interesting cultural and social phenomena
      • We have interest in particle physics as one of the more advanced, technically specialised, yet far from the public imaginary
      • Working on such highly abstract and "interpreted" data presents a interesting challenge to our project
      • We want to broaden the spectrum of different case studies we are dealing within the project
      • There were previous private contacts (Giulio)
    6. We do we offer and what do we want.
      • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
      • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
      • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what come out.
      • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe have some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
      • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
  • Version 12.10

    Topic

    • 1. Video [2 min]
      • video plays from the beginning, but without sound
      • once we have been introduced, we fade in the sound without comment
      • after 1 minute or so we fade out the sound again
      • the video plays on silently in the background of the first part of the presentation
    • 2. We [2 min]
      • presentation David & Gerhard
        • we are artists involved in research using scientific and artistic practices
        • work at IEM
        • we are trained as artists and scientists
        • composition, sound art, video art, musicology, physics
        • Michael (not present)
          • visual artist and philosopher
          • JAR editor-in-chief, AR theorist
          • core team has common artistic work history
      • slide 1: artistic research: creating possibilities for experiences from which insigts may emerge
        • relatively cautious formulation, others:
        • we create possibilities for (aesthetic) experiences affording epistemic potential
        • we consider artworks as non-propositional arguments / proposals
    • 3. Project [5 min]
      • slide 2: transpositions: artistic data exploration
        • TP
          • fundamental research funded by FWF, 2014-17
          • aim: creating new artistic forms based on scientific data
          • remaining “true” to the data, transposition are precisely defined
        • why interest in data?
          • we use data as a "material" out of which to produce artistic works
          • not representations, sonification or visualisation of the data
          • not instrumental for certain interpretations of the data
          • we are attempting alternative perspectives on data "extracted" from consolidated research contexts
      • slide 3: creating new traces
        • establish experiental spaces enabling reflection and imagination
        • thought experiments, building and testing conjectures and intuitions
      • explain brain data video
        • data from a simulation of memory recall processes in a bilogically inspired neural network
        • transposed into an audio-visual experience
        • mostly regulated by artistic and not only scientific reasoning (has to work as art)
        • but: transpositional operations are precicely defined, in a scientific sense
        • won’t explain the concrete ones now, but in a later example (Causality Report)
      • how transpositions work
        • full experience is only possible with knowledge of these operations
        • practice with experiencing transposition is needed, skills need to be developed (experience/reflection)
        • transpositons open spaces for imaginationtion, reflection, agrumentation
        • includes decisions arbitrary with respect other trace making approaches (e.g. scientific)
        • allows for traces to appear, which would not appear otherwise
    • 4. Case Studies [1 min]
      • project work is based on case studies
      • each case study: particular data set
      • 4 case studies
        • computational neuroscience: memory recall processes
        • molecular biology: DNA folding and gene expression
        • physical cosmology: dark energy
        • particle physics: deep inelastic scattering
    • 5. Sharing [6 min]
      • presentation of research: formats: exhibitions, concerts, symposia, seminars
      • DA TA rush: research event format: exposition, laboratory, symposium
      • provoke (aesthetic) discourse, get scientists also there!
      • data used (3 case studies: neuroscience, cosmology, COMPASS)
      • see now a brief 5 minute video (“enter aesthestic space now” )
      • video [5 min]
    • 6. Installations [5 min]
      • last two elements of video (white inflatable, struck steel rods)
      • one run of the 2004 transverse data and the corresponding raw data
      • hits data and reconstructed data
      • reconstructed data
        • make spatial error of the reconstruction process visible
        • trajectory reconstruction error at primary vertex position
        • superimposed ellipsoids whose semi-principal axes correspond to the x, y, z standard deviation
        • reconstruction process as generator of forms not as "transparent" interpretation
      • hits data installation
        • make temporal sequence of hits of one event experiencable (photo: trigger)
        • map detector array onto an aray of steel rods, which can be excited with solenoids
        • hit them whenever hits have been registered for the correspsonding set of detectors
    • 7. Example [5 min]
      • description of an example transposition, work in progress, good for discussion
      • hits data, als 4D (t-rel, x, y, z (of all detectors sic!))
        • time relative to speed of light/muon (how do they call this? why is it like that? how do they imagine this?)
      • 6x 2d projections, scaled and shifted to fix plot (image size, frame - only artists can do that)
      • connect point with its closests point (if any) in each quadrant
      • rationale: initial intension was to infer causal relationships between hit
      • development of drawing algorithms changed intention based on aesthetic experience
      • procedure then applied all projections are
      • open other (distored) views, traces
      • every distorition has the potential to make something potentially significant appear, based on distinctive qualities
      • (we are missing the precise x,y,z of the hit)
    • 8. Conclusions [3 min]
      • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
      • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
      • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what kind of artefacts are produced.
      • but we have just started to understand the data acquisition process (hits, reconstruction)
      • We realise that we need to understand more about technical (apparatus and data conditioning and reconstruction) processes and their relationships
        • in particular we are interested to work with the hits data and the reconstruced data and how these are related.
      • but also we need to understand more of involved thought processes and worlds
      • in particular in which kind of spaces you are thinking and reasoning?
      • which metaphors are you using?
      • which tools do you miss in your work?
      • we think that wuch a better understanding could give us the possibility to (and we are aeger to) produce artefacts which have not only aesthetic valence but which can also afford a retriggering of thinking processes on their side
      • so, we are here today to trigger interest in your group, ask for help in understanding and eventually start collaborations with you.
      • present and invite to final event in Stockholm

    in welchen Räumen denken die? Billiardkugeln, bei der Detektion?

    • Wo sehen sie die Grenzen ihrer Tools? Was hätten sie gerne?
    • Welche Metaphern arbeiten sie? In welcher Welt imaginieren sie, Assymetrien, etc.
    • hope that the artefacts produced by such collision have
      • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
      • Concrete Requests
        • DA TA rush, many questions!
        • 0.1% der Papers
        • Fragen: ästhetische Vorstelltung dessen, was im Detektor passiert
        • Detektoren zeichnen Spuren auf!
        • Daten (hits) von Kalibrieungsprozess
      • want to work with both, maybe the relationship between them, interest us in general (raw/cooked)
        • effects of different stages of interpretation
        • help! - take Lansner interaction as example to explain what we need
      • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
    • 9. Discussion [? min]
    • Rests
      • Why are we at CERN?
        • In our process (DA TA being part of it) we discovered that we could regard our praxis as a sort "destabilisation" of the ideal that data as stable, transparent and inactive component of the research process
        • Data seems as much being an active component in the research process (in that it "influences" the experimental results) as being affected by it (the experimental apparatus is constructed on the very scientific assumptions it wants to answer)
        • And therefore it's interesting for us to better understand and focus in our work on this complex relationship of the data and its context (theoretical, technical as well as social etc.)
        • From this perspective CERN and COMPASS are highly structured, specialised and compartmentalised contexts are for us interesting cultural and social phenomena
        • We have interest in particle physics as one of the more advanced, technically specialised, yet far from the public imaginary
        • Working on such highly abstract and "interpreted" data presents a interesting challenge to our project
        • We want to broaden the spectrum of different case studies we are dealing within the project
        • There were previous private contacts (Giulio)
        • M:
          • collaborations are also arbitrary
          • by chance we managed to work with interesting people / scientists
          • connection (dimensionality, dynamical systems)
          • connectitions possible
          • can never reach depth
          • => wir müssen den Raum stabilisieren
          • Vorstellungsraum, Fehler in Imagination integrieren
          • Entdeckung: man nimmt Störung/Fehler/Noise wahr, bis man versteht, was das ist
            • wenn ein Phänomen nicht kontrollierbar ist, kann heissen, dass es etwas bedeutet
          • nicht nur wie wir mit den Daten umgehen, sondern wie wir mit unserer Rolle umgehen in dem Prozess
      • We do we offer and what do we want
        • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
        • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
        • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what come out.
        • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
        • Concrete Requests
          • we have started to understand the data acquisition process (hits, reconstruction)
            • DA TA rush, many questions!
            • 0.1% der Papers
            • Fragen: ästhetische Vorstelltung dessen, was im Detektor passiert
            • Wo sehen sie die Grenzen ihrer Tools? Was hätten sie gerne?
            • Welche Metaphern arbeiten sie? In welcher Welt imaginieren sie, Assymetrien, etc.
            • in welchen Räumen denken die? Billiardkugeln, bei der Detektion?
            • Detektoren zeichnen Spuren auf!
            • Daten (hits) von Kalibrieungsprozess
          • want to work with both, maybe the relationship between them, interest us in general (raw/cooked)
          • effects of different stages of interpretation
          • apparatus (as back box)
          • help! - take Lansner interaction as example to explain what we need
        • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
      • slide show [2 min]
        • triggerable selfplaying piano
        • wall paintings
        • video work, audio work
  • Causality report
    1. Description of a transposition work in progress an experiment, good for discussion
    2. Hits data
    3. Reinterpreted as 4d data (t and x, y, z of the detectors), all detectors
    4. projected to one of the 6 possible 2d planes.
    5. Scaled and shift to fit image size
    6. Find for each hits the 4 closest neighbouring points (if any) in each direction or quadrants.
    7. Connect this point with the 4 points with a line
    8. The idea was to infer possible causal relationships
    9. The rational:
      • initial intention was to infer possible causal relationships between hits
      • in the process of development of the drawing the idea has been modifyed the based on the aesthetic experience of the drawing themselves
      • Opening of other perspectives of the same data.
      • These are deformations of the space in which the data lives in usually through which maybe other distincitive qualities of the same data.
      • Every deformation has the potential to make something appear potentially significant.

    How:

    1. Show 6 different projections of the same event.
    2. show 6 differnet events of the same projection.

    Questions:

    1. This because we are missing the precise x, y, z coordinates of the hit in the detector.
    2. Where are the wires in the detector?
  • Get visitor card building 33

    <2016-10-13 Thu 09:45>

  • Check in Hostel building 39

    <2016-10-13 Thu 10:20>

  • Call Nicolas Du Fresne 160912

    <2016-10-13 Thu 11:00>

GRZ -> GVA

<2016-10-13 Thu 06:00>–<2016-10-13 Thu 08:45>

GVA -> GRZ

<2016-10-14 Fri 14:00>–<2016-10-14 Fri 18:20>

Transcode Data

  • Notes

    Compile root.

    1. use cmake
    2. mkdir build
    3. cmake-gui ../root/
    4. configure and generate and exit
    5. make -j 8 and wait long long long

    The compile phast with following command line:

    make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/include/ -I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664 or make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/include/ -I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664

    and correct the PHASTHOME issue directly in source files.

    execute: cd /home/david/src/rootgit/build/bin source thisroot.sh

    new line to recompile: make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/rootgit/build/include/ -I/home/david/src/rootgit/root/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664

    Call with: ./phast -u99 -o eventswithK0.root phastmDST.mc.root ./phast -uN -o someoutputnotimportant.root imputrootfile.root

  • Data
    1. Run is 200 spill. Spill is beam
    2. Particle univoque are mostly only mus
    3. Primary vertex from collision. Secondary from decays
    4. Zlast first
    5. Units cm, GeV, nanoseconds and Tesla
    6. PaTPar are on Vertices come from refit on the vertices
    7. Not all tracks have particles
    8. origin is in the nominal center of the target (plot from skizzo)
    9. time: mean time is with respect to trigger time
    10. Primary vertex is always with beam
    11. Spills?
    12. hits?
    13. Termin CERN?
  • Detectors

    BM = beam momentum station (prima del target) FI = fiber scintillators SI = silicon microstrip MM = Micro Mega GM = GEM DC = saclay drift chambers (time res ~ microsec) ST = Straw tubes (teime res = ?) PA, PB, PS = Multi Wire Proportional Chambers (MWPC) (time res ~ 30 ns) DW = Large Drift chamber (W4-5) (time res ~ microsec) MA,MB = Muon wall A and B (time res ~ 100 ns) HI, HM, HO, HL trigger Hodoscopes (time res ~ ns)

  • Deep Inelastic Scattering

    The data we are looking at is the product of a Montecarlo (MC) simulation of Deep Inelastic Scattering Collisions. These collisions which are simulated are produced at the CERN in the COMPASS laboratory by a high energy (160 Gev) beam of muon (plus) particles colliding with a polarised deuteron target. The Deuteron is the nucleus of the Deuterium atom and is formed by a proton and a neutron.

    Deep Inelastic Scattering in general is used to expose the inner structure of hadrons and in particular protons and neutrons. In the process a high energy electron or muon (a lepton in general) is "shot" at a target consisting of hadrons. The lepton is "scattered" meaning that its trajectory is deflected by some angle. The collision is inelastic in the sense that the target absorbs some of the energy of the incoming lepton in the collision and, at very high energies as in the present case, it is "shattered" emitting many new particles. These emitted particles are in general again hadrons (so protons and neutrons).

    In principle the incoming lepton "knocks-out" quarks which are forming the hadrons. Quarks however cannot be observed directly, due to the quark confinement phenomenon, meaning that quarks always appear in confined states in which they are bound to other quarks connected by gluons. Gluons are the particles that carry the "strong field", the force that holds quarks together forming the hadrons (gluons are the particles carrying the strong force as photons are the particles carrying the electromagnetic force).

    So the hadrons produced and observed in the events, indirectly expose the inner workings of hadrons and of the interaction of quarks in general. The beam needs to be at such high energies so that its wavelength (in quantum physics particles are waves and their energy is inverse proportional to their wavelength, so high energy means short wavelength) is so short in order to be "able" to interact with the very small quarks in the hardons internals.

    In particular in the COMPASS Experiment the focus lies on the understanding of the spin structure of hadrons. There are some unresolved issues connected with spin asymmetries observed in the produced hadrons which cannot be presently explained with the "physics we have".

  • Data Structure

    Looking at the figure on the right roughly depicting the COMPASS experiment setup, the beam is coming in on the target from the left along the Z axis. It interacts with the target where other particles are produced. All the particles then continue to the right entering the area where the detectors are placed.

    The data is organised as follows:

    • Runs: A run is one experimental data collection of many events. It serves as an overall "container" of all the data collected during one session.
    • Spills: The beam of incoming muons is not continuous. The Beam is subdivided in "spills" consisting of "packets" of muons being directed towards the target every fixed time interval. The Beam passing with the target can have zero (it misses the target) to multiple collisions with the target.
    • Event: When the incoming beam collides with the target it triggers one event starting the recording. There is no Event if the beam doesn't interact with the target. Each collision triggers one event and starts the data acquisition. Note that it is possible to observe so-called "pile ups", meaning that in a recorded event there could be more than one beam incoming trajectory producing other collisions or not (missing the target, "flying" far from it a straight through the whole apparatus). These can be distinguished from the other looking at their momentum along the Z axis. If it is very high, near or even equal to 160 GeV, it has to be a beam particle. Other particles produced in the event don't have such high energies.
    • Hits: These are basically the raw data of an event, containing the position in the detectors where a particle has passed (in the form of "hit at filament XY in Layer Z etc.) and at which time. Currently we don't have this data (we will get it soon), as it is not contained in the mDST files we have. mDST stands for "mini DST": these files contain only the reconstructed properties of the event from the hits: trajectories, vertices of interaction, mean times, particles involved. There are files, called "mega DST" which contain all the reconstructed data and the hits. Usually these are not kept for long time for size resons: the mDST files are ca. 1% smaller than the megaDSTs.
    • Trajectories: Applying a fitting algorithm on the Hits, the trajectories of the particles passing through the trackers are reconstructed. These trajectories consists of the "ZFirst" and "ZLast" values which are the first and the last observed Z axis position of the trajectory in the tracked volume. With the ZFirst parameter a vector ("Trajectory Parameter") is associated containing information about the X and Y position the momentum at that point (PX, PY and PZ) and the slope of the trajectory (expressed as dX/dZ and dY/dZ). Further the Trajectory have a "mean time" information, which is the mean of all the Hits times being used for reconstructing the trajectory and is relative to the "trigger time" (zero time). The trigger is activated after some event has activated it starting data acquisition. The data acquisition is started immediately when the trigger is activated, but the trigger time usually needs some more time to be recorded. That means that the mean time of a trajectory can be negative. Note that in the reconstructed data the first trajectory is usually the one of the beam particle.
    • Particles: After another fitting round, particles are associated with the trajectories. The particles have information about their charge (Q) and the particle type (muon or other). Each particle is associated with only one trajectory.
    • Vertices: Another algorithm now cross compares all the reconstructed data and based on the information about the trajectories, momenta, slopes etc. of the particles and their trajectories back-tracing "what happened" before the particles entered in the tracked area. In particular which particle interacted with which other or "appears" at which position (X, Y, Z) called "vertex". Each Vertex has information about the particle's momentum and trajectory slope (Trajectory Parameter) at that point. Vertices can be "Primary" if a particle beam is involved in it or "Secondary" if not. An event can have more than one Primary Vertex.
  • DONE Send lines to Michael, write into reserachcatalogue
  • Hits
    • Da fare:

      vertici in ordine di tempo usa exptrapolate

    • MC Hits che ci sono:

      mDST MChits

      FI04X MM01X DC01X FI05X GM03X ST03X FI06X GM09X ST04X

  • DONE Skizzo Ask
  • Skizzo Skype

    <2015-11-15 Sun 11:00>–<2015-11-15 Sun 16:00>

    • Quantisation
    • X, Y, Z
    • Exceptional events? Use statistics to screen out events?
    • Find out which quantities or qualities of the event are important or wesentlich?
    • Which events are more interesting which are less?
  • Write Skizzo for Vienna Dates

Questions To skizzo:

  1. Time is really from left to right? Could it be different?
  2. knicks? in the beam
  3. CERN Date?
  4. Reserachcatalogue access

Questions 2:

  1. tone in the data (gerhard)
  2. Would you come to Vienna in May?

Mail to spokespersons

Dear …

My Name is Prof. Gerhard Eckel and I'm writing to you as the leader of the research project "Transpositions". We have received your email contact from Mr. Giulio Sbrizzai who is collaborating with us.

I'm writing as in the context of this research project we would like to work with the data from DIS events you have recorded during the COMPASS project.

The project "Transpositions" is an artistic research project funded by the Austrian research fund (FWF) within the Programme of Arts-based Research (PEEK). The research project investigates the possibility of generating new artistic auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and mathematical transformation of scientific data. Case studies from different scientific fields provide data to be transposed by the artists into artistic outputs, which are in turn open to be re-analysed by the scientists. By remaining true to the data while employing an artistic working method and, thus, by combining scientific and artistic values, the project aims to contribute to the conceptual development of a space for research that is shared between art and science. The project team consists of Michael Schwab (University of Applied Arts, Vienna), Gerhard Eckel and David Pirrò (Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics, University of Music and Performing Arts Graz).

With the help of Mr. Sbrizzai we have already started to work on the data produced by Montecarlo Simulations, but it would methodologically important to our project to be able to work with recorded data. Therefore, we would like to ask you if it is possible for us to receive part of data from COMPASS. We will use this data to produce sonic and visual artistic artefacts which we will possibly exhibit publicly (e.g. on the Research Catalogue, https://www.researchcatalogue.net/, an international database for artistic research) and which may inform, in an a subsequent feedback round, scientific analysis and data representation methods. We are interested in both the reconstructed data and the data of the "Hits" recorded by the detectors.

We know that Mr. Sbrizzai already has contacted you in this regard and introduced to you this issue. We wanted to contact you more directly and officially.

We hope to hear from you soon.

Best wishes,

Gerhard Eckel

Questions 3

  • Detector types (the one with ???) in the file ~/ownCloud/TP/data/DIS/test1disdetectorstypes.txt
    • DR -> Rich Walls
    • GP -> Pixel GEM
    • HG -> Trigger
    • HI -> Trigger
    • HL -> Trigger
    • HM -> Trigger
    • HO -> Trigger
    • MA -> Muon Wall A
    • MB -> Muon Wall B
  • 3D Model? x Asks
  • Time resolution: we found out that it matches but there are some which are appear to have different sampling rates? (look at the pdf TheCOMPASSExperiment.pdf) x asks technical coordinator
  • Is the paper above aktuell? x No, but it refers to the data we are receiving
  • When Do we expect the data to be ready? (Time frame!!!!) x
  • Formular abrechnung!
  • How to transform the reference system to be the scatter muon reference system? x
  • Skizzo Skype

    <2016-01-27 Wed 19:00>–<2016-01-27 Wed 20:00>

DONE New DATA

Skizzo 23.03.2016

  1. hits: waiting for reply from CERN
  2. errors
  3. sigma
  4. velocity scaling
  • DONE Mail Michael Vertex

Skype prepare for Mallot, Gerhard, Michael

<2016-07-18 Mon 15:00>–<2016-07-18 Mon 16:30>

Skype Gerhard + Mallot

<2016-07-19 Tue 10:30>–<2016-07-19 Tue 12:00>

CERN, presentations

<2016-10-13 Thu>–<2016-10-14 Fri>

CERN email:

  1. Gerhard Mallot: Gerhard.Mallot@cern.ch
  2. Nicole d'Hose: Nicole.D'Hose@cern.ch
  3. Caroline Riedl: criedl@illinois.edu
  4. Jan Friedrich: Jan@tum.de
  5. Sergei Gerassimov: Sergei.Gerassimov@cern.ch
  6. Nicolas Du Fresne: Nicolas.Du.Fresne.Von.Hohenesche@cern.ch

Transpositions Project @ COMPASS

Dear All,

It was very interesting and inspiring for me to have the possibility to present our work in the project "Transpositions" in the context of your project meeting on 13.10 and get in touch with all of you!

I write to you as I understood from our last meeting in the cafeteria, that you would be most interested in furthering our collaboration, maybe even pursuing new directions.

As we are currently in the process of revisiting and developing further our work on the data of the COMPASS experiment, we would like to keep the contact with you "alive" and maybe exchange ideas and thoughts as we proceed.

Recalling our discussion, I think that at the moment it would be important for us in order to dive deeper into the COMPASS data set, to work on a new data set which, as some of you also proposed, is more recent than the one we are working on currently (2004 data set). Also, it would be important to have a bit more of information about the data itself. So, of this new data set, it would be interesting to have:

  • the hits data per event
  • the corresponding reconstructed data of the event i.e. the reconstructed trajectories and vertices
  • and the "category" of the event i.e. a sort of "tag" which identifies what "kind" of event it is, for example "DVCS" if I recall correctly

Do you think this could be possible to get such data? Consider that, with the help of Giulio, I could get the phast tool to work and I can write specialised User Jobs to extract information. So I can work with root files.

Please let me know if you have also other ideas or suggestions!

I have another issue I would like to address. After our meeting at CERN, I became very clear to us that we would like to have another "round" with you where we would maybe have some more time to show you our work and discuss. All of us would then be present. Our idea would be to have a sort of small "exhibition" of our works at CERN (for example July 2017 seems a good period for us) which we could use as a sort of "point" around which meetings and discussions could take place. Probably it would be best if this would fall into the same period of one of your scheduled Project meetings, so it would be easier for you to be actually present at the time.

Do you think this is possible and feasible?

We are in contact with the Art @ CERN people, who are interested in our project, but unfortunately do not have any space at CERN in which we could exhibit our works. So, I would like to ask you, if you have any rooms or spaces, which we could use for that small exhibition, also because this is primarily intended for your group.

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

Looking forward to your replies.

Best wishes,

David

DONE Write / Call Gerassimov

  • Ask him for coming to Stockholm come on Wednesday

DONE Produce Trajectories video / images

Cosmology

Notes to Recording of Gerhard and Martin

  • Data is of galaxy clusters
  • Data collected from a cosmological survey
    • From an x-ray satellite (XMM-Newton 10 Years)
    • It is the complete archive of the XMM observation
    • Collection of images of x-ray survey in different bands in the range 1- 10 KeV
    • Purpose is to detect extended sources of x-rays, Usually these are galaxy clusters which have a core of dark matter then there is a gas of barions. Gas is hot and rotating around the core, generating Bremsstralung which is the source of the x-rays.
    • Scale of a cluster is ~1-10 Mpc, a Galaxy is in the scale of the ~100 Kpc
    • Software detects possible candidates excluding point sources
    • Measuing the temperature of the x-rays by measuring the spectrum of the x-rays. Is in relation to the temperature of the gas.
    • Measure of the distance of the object via redshift measurement
    • Temperature and redshift and luminosity (first number in the xls) are the more interesting parameters
    • Luminosity is a sort of an average over several images. There are different Luminosity measures over different solid angles.
    • In galactic coordinates where the Milky way is the origin
    • Mapping of redshift to distance is non linear because of the universe expanding
  • How massive are these clusters and at what distance are they.
    • From Temperature you can derive mass
    • What kind of distributions of mass and redshift are predicted from the models? Adapt the cosmological parameters.
    • Matter density ind the university
    • How grainy is the matter distribution in the universe?
  • Homogeneity scale ~100 Mpc
  • Clusters of Galaxies ore place at the intersection of filaments
  • Clusters are less compared to the filaments
  • They are virialised (equilibrium) and therefore can be seen as separated systems

Skype meeting notes

  • Dark matter forms the backbone structure of the universe
  • this structure forms the filaments
  • where the filaments encounter there are galaxy clusters
  • interesting is the also the substructure of the clusters
  • target is to understanding the mass of objects. The distribution of objects as function of mass.
  • "Fundamental noise":
    • There are limitations to the amount of information we can get.
    • We are confined in our information so there is a limit to what we can know about it.
    • The universe we observe would be unlikely of there would not be the inflation. But we don't know how likely inflation is.

DONE Retrieve data to do something!

Genome

Skype meeting notes

  • work on the understanding how the genome (13 billion letters, would be 2 meters) folds (very little) and it has to fold in such way that it turn certain genes on or off (depending on the cell)
  • only 2 - 3% are used to make "codings?"
  • the non coding dna (97%), which are regulating the protein production
  • Looking at the regions which are close to ear other in 3d space.
  • looking at the folded dna (letters which would be far happen to be close). they interact
  • try to find the regulative elements of the protein production
  • The kind of folding is 70% similar in different tissues, but there are details that are very different. Some proteins are important for some cells less for other.
  • they don't measure physical distance, but they measure interaction
  • the observe the effects, the interactions
  • the interactions are not all functional it may be structural
  • non coding-part of genome
  • the main interest for her is cordiovascular disease. they try to find out the specific variations which are in the non-coding part of the genome.
  • the fold it is not an univoque transformation, which may bring near some letters which "should not" be near.
  • resolution is around 600 bases
  • 20.000 genes
  • 100.000 interactions

Work

  1. p - e interaction (apore, bpore)
  2. promoter point before the gene which control switch on or off
  3. enhancers effectively switches the gene
  4. promoters are regions: not really exactly defined: position is apos
  5. achr is number of chormosome apos position, " region" on chromosome
  6. position is only interesting relative to other positions on the same chormosome
  7. enhancers are just fragments not genes: es. 180000 M & N are start and end fragment. L ist the middle
  8. from AB we have r1 and r2 which are different experiments (runs)
  9. read values are the "confidence" if there is effectively an interaction
  10. in iteract.csv are the important fields collected and conditioned
  11. interactions collects how many interactions there are on each specific point a in with which average confidence level (?)

Find clusters: sequences of interaction points which "loop" into themselves

Evaluate "importance" of interaction points.

Explanation Imperfect Video

  • Intro

    This work bases on data of genome folding.

    The DNA molecule is composed by pairs of adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). Genes are portions of the DNA double helix strings which contains the "code" for the production of one specific protein. The whole of the genetic information encoded in the DNA is tightly packed around other proteins called histones forming bigger structures which are the chromosomes, 24 in the human genome and in the data we are dealing with.

    The chromosomes in turn are packed together in a very small space, in a very complex "knot". In this arrangement, parts of a chromosome are interacting or "touching" parts of other chromosomes or of the same chromosome. This interaction is not only due to the very tight packing, it is also functional as these interactions cause the cell in which the DNA is to produce (or not) specific proteins.

    Thus this complex spatial arrangement is of interest to genetic researchers as the understanding how it is generated could lead to an understanding not only of how specific interactions come into place but also how other, "unwanted" interactions could be caused which could be the origin of some of genetic diseases.

  • Data

    The data we have received consists of a list experimentally determined interactions between genes. The list comprises 856552 of such interactions between 482471 positions across the 24 chromosomes. Thus, each recorded position can have multiple interactions with different other positions, meaning it "touches" at the same time different portions of chromosomes.

    The is list thus composed of:

    1. chromosome and position on the chromosome pairs
    2. confidence level of the recorded interaction
    3. type of the gene: promoter or enhance (ignored in the following)
  • Metaphor

    In this work, I have implemented a physically inspired simulation in order to transpose visually the continuous process of knotting of the chromosome strings due to the interactions we have recorded in the data.

    Chromosomes have been simulated as a set of multiple joints corresponding tho the positions in the data. Each of these joints is connected to the previous and the next position on the same chromosome with a binding force, thus the joints form a string or a line. Further each joint is under the effect of a force which pull it toward all other positions (on other chormosomes) with which it interacts.

    For modelling all the interactions, spring-like forces have been used. The joints are modelled as masses under the influence of attrition in order to avoid that possible oscillations could grow to great amplitudes and keeping the whole system in a rather low energy state allowing for convergence to a stable state.

    These masses move and interact in a three dimensional space. In the video below only the projection of the masses position on the x, y plane is used.

    Each time the simulation is started the masses are placed randomly in the space.

    Running the simulation eventually a stable state or a "knot" of chromosomes is found whose spatial structure is informed by the whole network of interactions we have in the data.

  • Conditioning Step

    For the first incarnation of this work, it was necessary to reduce the complexity of the data in order to run the simulation in real-time. Therefore two conditioning steps have been performed on the data before the simulation is run:

    1. the information about the gene positions has been "undersampled", meaning that the chromosomes have segmented into larger segments and all the positions and their interaction in each segment have been condensed in one of the joints in the simulation. Chromosomes have different length, therefore the longest chromosome (number 1) has been first segmented into a maximum number of pieces (32 in the video below) and the segmentation length fixed. The other chromosomes have then after been segmented using this length. Thus the chromosome strings are all composed by a different number of joints.
    2. All the interactions with a confidence level below a threshold (10 in for the video below) have been ignored.
  • Groups

    For the simulation in real-time, not all the interactions between the joints are simulated at the same time. Instead the interactions are switch on between the joints in groups of three (8 of those groups are used for the rendering of the video below). Each of these groups is composed of joints which interact with each other. Joints in these groups are drawn together as their interaction means that they should be near to each other.

    At the beginning the groups are chosen randomly. However, after a certain time or when the area inscribed by the triangle which has the three joints in the group as vertices reaches a small value the group is changed using the following strategy:

    1. At firsts the group consist of 3 joints:
      • A
      • B
      • C
    2. The group is changed in 2 steps:
      • the first is removed and the second and third become first and second
      • A now joint D is added to the group choosing from one of the joints the second joint (now C) interacts with. So the new group is now:
        • B
        • C
        • D
    3. After some time or when the joints are near enough the group is again changed removing B and inserting joint E from the joint with which D interacts with:
      • C
      • D
      • E

    etc.

    As a result, these groups of "crawl" through the whole network always pulling interacting joints towards each other in a continuous knotting of the whole network of chromosome-strings.

  • Video

    In the video the joints on the same chromosome are jointed by a white line. The white strings correspond to the chromosomes

    Groups are rendered graphically in the video below as white triangles.

    The video frame is always adjusted to the maximum x and y positions of the joints. This means that the image is always zoomed such to hold all the joints. Further, while the structure gets more and more dense and smaller this dynamic zoom adjustment acts as a adaptive magnification factor on the forming knot.

  • Video 1

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 32 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 8364 interactions per joint.

  • Video 2

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 64 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 7994 interactions per joint.

  • Video 3

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 128 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 7064 interactions per joint.

Knots

  • Intro

    Following the metaphor of self-knotting strings explained in Strings, a physical model of linked joints (or masses in the following) has been used to model the chromosomes. Each mass is connected to the previous and the next with a force that keeps them at an equal distance. The forces acting here are of spring-like type and attracting, keeping the string together. The distance d = 0.1 used in the simulation has no correspondence with the real data.

    A second spring-like type force acts on the next-to-next and previous-to-previous masses from each mass. This force is repulsive and keeps this masses at a distance which is greater than 2.0 d. The function of this force is to avoid that the strings make too tight angles: angles between three joints tighter than 90 degrees are so, very unlikely.

    A third force attracts each joint to the joint(s) with which it has a recorded interaction. This force is thus attractive and gravitational-like. Due to the effect of this force the chormosome-strings begin to form a knot while trying to minimise the distances with the joints (either on the same chromosome string or on others) with which they interact.

  • Conditioning

    As explained in (link), the data of genome folding / interactions has been conditioned in two steps:

    1. chromosomes has been segmented into equal size pieces: information about position interactions have been therefore "undersampled": position interactions information falling into one of these segments has been condensed on the one joint representing that segment.
    2. interactions with confidence level below 10 have been ignored.
  • Simulation

    The simulation of this knotting process is computationally very intensive and long. Further, order, to keep the whole system stable, the magnitude of "knotting" force is slowly increased each time the energy of the whole system falls below a certain threshold, i.e. the joints are less active and have reached a stable configuration. The whole process thus mimics a simulated annealing algorithm (link).

    The process is stopped when the mean deviation of the optimum distance between interacting joints falls below 0.008 and the mean kinetic energy is below 0.01.

  • Exhibit 1: test

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 64 pieces per chromosome

  • Exhibit 2: test

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 128 pieces per chromosome

  • Exhibit 3

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 256 pieces per chromosome. The process has been stopped with:

    1. mean energy 3.816983773934539E-003
    2. mean deviation from optimal distance 6.726344386506080E-003
    3. maximum distance deviation between interacting joints: 2.86511037208726
    4. mean distance of joints on same chromosome (a measure of the integrity of the chromosome strings): 0.106353053945251 (0.1 is optimal)
  • obj

    energy difference 2.562347487377649E-003 ICpull 3.496063128113747E-002 mean dvar 4.364636821724464E-003 icn 2656 ccd 0.106343580553791 max dist IC 0.199361766042406 max dist in Chr 0.152976706611594 finished annealing with dist var 4.364636821724464E-003

  • DONE Condition new data

Reflections

Michael

24 08 2015 Michael

We may have idealised the collaborative process in our project application. Outside of data representations and transpositions, TP is very much also a project that investigates transdisciplinary modes of collaboration. In this sense, the notion of ‘transposition’ also indicates a gap between fields or disciplines with risks attached. For example, how far into the territory of the scientific side do we venture? During case study 1, we have perhaps been too much preoccupied with questions to do with ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ understandings of both the scientists’ data and research context. Why did we find it so difficult to let go of these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ at an earlier stage?

In TP we constructed the scientists as our first audience. We expected for them to also see something in our work, so somewhere, the representational mode needed to stay intact, which became particularly clear in moments when we realised that, for example, we misinterpreted the data format and where looking at and listening to ‘nonsense’. Who we choose to be our first audience (or how we imagine it), has a lot of impact. Although we showed our outputs during the seminar, I feel I am not done with the case study since I haven’t created the kind of objects that I can relate to, which is a moment where a different materiality (not representing data but presenting materials) becomes important. Together with the other case studies, this has to happen now at the very end (which is not a bad thing).

The risk is to cut the avenue into the scientific data off too soon, so that no real understanding of the data can happen to the degree that even the data format may be misunderstood resulting in nothing but white noise. So it is clear, that one needs to push while being aware of the resources that are limited. Beyond this is not a smooth space of ‘artistic practice’; I feel that one needs structured chains (Latour) to convert information. For example, we may have 4 clearly separated types: (1) understanding data (2) calibrating instruments (coding) (3) making and presenting work (4) reflecting back. Crucial: each has its own setting with its own ‘budget’, so, for example, when we meet for work presentation, we stop being side tracked by debates about the data or the code; we would also create adequate settings: audio/video projection & longer times or experience. All 4 types could require 25% of time resources, so no overspending to the detriment of other types.

I don’t know. This is really a rather helpless attempt to be sharper about the real problems that we face in the project, which are not only in the data but also in the conditions and structures of TP itself. I am thinking of the kind of work Florian Dombois has developed in his ‘palavers’ (http://floriandombois.net/works/palaver.html ) (which I never attended): a palaver happens in an organised, split space in which by being at a particular location, one also plays a particular role. For example, we could think about a way to ‘stage’ Gerhard’s ‘process model’ – I would like to see as one ‘output’ of TP an ‘imaginary manual’ in which each stage is focussed on with regard to its function but also with regard to the kind of aesthetics that it affords and the mode in which we want to engage those. In other words, a better conceptual grip on the working situation allowing for a better repositioning of who we are during the process that is TP.

David

Yes, I share Michael's observation about the late letting go of "right" or "wrongs". I guess we were a bit too concerned in making it "right" for our first audience, the scientists. Maybe in order to justify our project in their eyes? I think that also the fact that we had so many misunderstanding for such a long time span regarding the data, what is in there, how to read it, how the data is stored that this also limited our action possibilities. If we are continuously correcting our understanding of the data and consequently re-adapting our instruments and re-formulating our reflection, this leaves us with very little energy (and time) for developing an own stance to it. We should, and we are already, approach this differently in the next case study.

A structured chain of information "conversion" how Michael proposes may be of help. Still, I'm concerned by the fact that these stages are inherently strongly interconnected. At least from my perspective or approach, being maybe more near to the instruments making, every reflection or new understanding of the data has an immediate effect an the coding part. I noticed in our meetings that it may be difficult for me to remain on one specific "stage" as Michael defines them. They seem inextricably intertwined. And I ask myself if this aspect (the intertwining of processing stages) is a characteristic of the work we do, which makes it different to how scientists work. Well, let's say, maybe we are in the position of acknowledging it explicitly, more than scientists are able to.

As a critique to myself, I think that I have probably driven myself in certain moments into the position of the instrument maker, retiring maybe more from other stages of the process. This caused in some moments a sort of frustration on my side. But I see, this was not intended by anyone in the project. I think I did it all by myself, maybe driven by preceding experiences or personal attitude. I also perceive that this has changed a bit for me and I'm pleased by this change of "behaviour"…

An observation connected to the previous comment is also the following. It is a fact that we all three come from different backgrounds, use different "languages" and tool sets to express ideas and thought and realise things. Therefore it seems natural that each of us takes a particular position within the project, taking care more of one stage than of another. Still we are, undoubtedly, interacting, talking to each other and realising things together. I find this situation very interesting even if it can be difficult to understand each other. And actually it seems very productive: even misunderstandings seem productive. It is a sort of "collision" in a sense, which ends up producing new states. Also, this interaction between us, and I think this is also clear, is has an effect on each of us, modifying our way of working an expressing ourselves to each other. In some way we are re-negotiating our positions.

An aspect I would like to underline which has crystallised from our work on the first case study is the aspect of "locality". I refer for example to the n-dimensional viewer where, in its first implementation, the exact representation of local relationships was privileged over an inexact (or even impossible) global view. But I think also of Gerhard's sonifications of the single spiking events in the network. The "zooming in" and dilatation of phenomena versus the classical scientific approach that uses statistical methods which are actually smoothing out all local, short timed or small spaced aspects of the observed object. I think this way of looking at the data is particular to our work. For scientists these aspects apparently do not have any "meaning" within their theories. Talking about the data of the COMPASS experiment, Giulio said it clearly to me that actually looking at the traces or characteristics of one single event, is absolutely meaningless (his words) for physicists. Only the statistics over hundred-thousands of events is interesting. One event "could be anything, doesn't mean nothing". I think that saying one event is "something" which has (has to have) a relationship with all the other events, and asking how this relationship looks like or sounds like, I think this could be an interesting perspective to take when relating to the scientists. Maybe this is "meaningless", but still they should be able to relate this perspective to their view and here, I feel, they are often put on a shaky terrain. They feel they should be able to "explain" those localities, but often they can't.

Gerhard

Michael2

David2

  • Notes

    We are "doing" to little!

Conference

Ideas

Dates

  • Preparation
    • Stockholm, preparation DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-28 Thu>

    • Stockholm, preparation DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-29 Fri>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-30 Sat>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-01 Sun>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-02 Mon>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-03 Tue>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-04 Wed>

  • Conference
    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-04 Wed>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-05 Thu>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-06 Fri>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual, rig sown

      <2017-10-07 Sat>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual, rig down, back to Graz

      <2017-10-08 Sun>

Exhibition AIL

<2016-05-10 Tue>–<2016-05-18 Wed>

Inflatable transport IEM

<2019-06-13 Thu 12:00>–<2019-06-13 Thu 14:00>

Get Jackfield Tischler

<2016-04-29 Fri 08:30>–<2016-04-29 Fri 09:00>

Gerhard, AIL planning

<2016-04-19 Tue 09:00>–<2016-04-19 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Skype AIL Planning, ask LE and TP

<2016-04-21 Thu 10:00>–<2016-04-21 Thu 11:00>

Gerhard Feedback Tests, Master Patch, Prepare Linux, CUBE

<2016-04-29 Fri 13:00>–<2016-04-29 Fri 16:00>

Symposium

<2016-05-17 Tue>

Ideas

  1. Talk to Michele (David): He will,
    1. implement the triggers with arduinos.
    2. set up the arduinos wifi network
    3. realise the laser-water-reflection seismograph
    4. realise the 10x10 = 100 6,3mm jack connection field
    5. he should start immediately with the arduino triggers and the laser-water-seismograph and have something to show us until the 16.12.
    6. Meeting with him, David and Gerhard is on that day from 09:00 to 10:30
    7. Possibly he could also come to Vienna in February to the AIL Gallery when we test things
  2. Testing in February at the AIL
    1. fix one date for the tests in place (Gerhard). Our preferred date is on the 15.02. If not possible find out if we can get in one or more days in the week before, before the opening hours, before 11:00.
    2. we will test:
      1. Acoustics: Sweep every room and record from every room.
      2. Monitors: Test how we can control them: via Network? (David)
      3. Laser-water-seismograph
    3. Organisation: possibly organise to come with a car as we will have to transport the whole tracking system anyway.
  3. Thoughts about the exhibition
    1. the whole exhibition should behave as a whole dynamical system
    2. visualisation of this dynamical system? Maybe done using the line integrals technique (David)
    3. the reflection of the laser from the water surface should appear on a wall (possibly the wall where the window to the offices is).
    4. the reflection is "framed" within a square
    5. use a webcam and then background subtraction to extract information about the vibrations
      1. for direct audification
      2. or for control input or excitation force for the whole exhibition dynamical system
    6. the "sonic" installations should be heard not only in the room they are in but should also "mix" with the other installations in the other rooms. So if one is in one room the visitor would also hear a mixture of the others playing, reacting, therefore we need acoustic measurements.
    7. Artemis will realise something with the cosmology data in the "cinema", black cube, space
    8. time based installations have a trigger (realised with arduino). Activating the trigger inputs an excitation in the single installation activating it, but has also an effect on the whole exhibition
    9. 10x10 jack field:
      1. used with headphones
      2. actually it is a single stereo signal which is played.
      3. sensing which plug is being connected will change the file being played.

Ideas 2

  • Reactive exhibition, triggered from outside
  • Time-based installations are triggered: audio and video
  • Installation classes:
    • Actuators and Sensors or both
  • Input is something like noise. Tram and Visitors are a sort a noise source.
  • The reaction of the whole installation is a sort of "impulse response"
  • The dynamical system which connects the elements is visualised?
  • The way of thinking we have developed in the transpositions informs the way in which the exhibition is planned and showed
  • Connection between mass and energy (velocity): gravitational forces
  • Matrix ideas
  • Matrix of loudspeakers is in room 4 in centre towards the top

CEUS Details

  1. There is combo box (separate machine, other than the one under the piano) and
  2. MIDI default delay is 200 ms: not possible to go further down

DONE Preparations for tests in place [3/3]

  • [X] Acoustic measurements
    • We are measuring the acousting couplings between different rooms
    • We measure with DPAs (Gerhard) with own head
    • Audio interface (M-audio usb)
    • [X] Aliki (ask Martin): get source, compile, run
    • Loudspeaker (Genelec) + cables long ones (xlr and power) and microstativ
    • Loudspeker always indirect
    • Record in every room sweeps from every other room
    • [X] Measure system latency: 15.719 ms
      • Naming convention: eg = ground floor ug = basement eg1 = towards metro = 1 eg2 = piano position = 2 eg3 = matrix position (in between) = 3 eg4 = backwards = 4 ug1 = blackhole = 5 ug2 = in between = 6 ug3 = long backwards = 7 starting from third measurement we have 2 measurements each
  • [X] Monitors:
    • Clear if we can use them (Gerhard).
    • [X] Model: SONY No. KDL-42W805B get user's manual
    • [X] Check playback possibilities (usb stick)
    • [X] Control over Network?
    • Mounting? Which possibilities?
    • ethernet cable, USB stick with videos
    • Notes
      1. controlURL http://192.168.0.102/sony/IRCC (or just IRCC)
      2. port 52323
  • [X] Check WLAN
    • [X] Repeater and Router (Ask IOhannes which is good)
      • Ask IOhannes how many reapeater is possible and good to have, maybe buy two
  • [X] Check laser seismograph (Michele)
    • Buy laser with power supply (as small as possible)
    • Construct the mirroring thing (microstativ + stereo shienen)
    • Metal mirror
    • Liquid flat and big, diffuse underground for testing
    • Blob tracking
      • 10 x 10 pixel Matrix
      • Done with laptop webcam (test)
      • Done in processing, possibly display the matrix an laptops' monitor
      • Output over OSC on WLAN
      • [X] Processing code on the ownCloud share with Michele (David)
    • [X] In Vienna capture video of the laser on the wall and of the water surface
    • Blob tracking (x y positions list /blob/1/x,y etc) + Pixel matrix 9x9 oder 10x10 (adjustable)
  • [X] Installation network
    • Central organising machine (receiving and sending triggers)
    • Take mac mini + monitor and keyboard (David)
    • Columns: do we build them?
    • Emergency buttons (get it from post)
    • Button is connected to a specific pin: the number of the pin is the message id
    • [X] WLAN access point (IOhannes) (David)
    • [X] Ethernet shield (David + Arduino)
    • [X] power supply for both arduino and access point
    • Central pc has fixed IP address known to all arduinos
    • access points get IP over DHCP
    • columns wooden with metal foot, open in just one side in the lower part. metal foot with 4 soft plastic foots
  • [X] Transport check with Michele (David)
  • [X] Measure space
    • [X] get laser disto
    • [X] 5 meter rollmass
  • Equipment List AIL [0/0]
    • [ ] dpa Gerhard + cables (XLR adapter?)
    • [ ] Genelec loudspeaker + microstativ
    • [ ] 3 very long power cable extensions
    • [ ] 1 jack -> xlr adapter
    • [ ] 3 very long xlr cables
    • [ ] 3 xlr microphone cables
    • [ ] 1 network cable
    • [ ] Wlan router and repeater
    • [ ] laser seismograph:
      • [ ] microstativ + stereo schiene
      • [ ] laser
      • [ ] mirror
      • [ ] netzteil for laser
      • [ ] water recipient
      • [ ] laptop for tests (Michele)
    • [ ] arduino trigger
    • [ ] laser disto
    • [ ] 5 meter rollmass
  • DONE Pack Tracking + Petersgasse (Michele)
  • DONE Test + pack Loudspeakers amps and cables (Michele)
  • DONE Study the monitors thing

Michele, AIL Preparations

<2015-11-30 Mon 17:00>–<2015-11-30 Mon 18:00>

Michele, Trigger

<2016-03-14 Mon 10:00>–<2016-03-14 Mon 12:00>

Michele, Gerhard, tests

<2015-12-16 Wed 09:00>–<2015-12-16 Wed 10:30>

Artemis, Gerhard

<2015-12-01 Tue 11:00>–<2015-12-01 Tue 12:00>

Measurements AIL

<2016-02-14 Sun 08:00>–<2016-02-14 Sun 12:00>

Skype Gerhard Michael

<2016-02-14 Sun>

CEUS, Artemis, Vienna

<2016-03-17 Thu 07:25>

CEUS, Bösendorfer, Artemis

<2016-04-08 Fri 07:25>

DONE Multiplexer, CD74HC4051

<2016-02-03 Wed 09:00>–<2016-02-03 Wed 09:30>

DONE For AIL Exhibition [1/1]

  • [X] jackfield (Michele)
    • 10 x 10, big jack, stereo, with switching logic (arduino)
    • Arduino reads position of inserted jack
    • with jacks with switches

DONE Send email for CEUS Tests in Vienna

DONE Send mail Gerhard Jackfield

DONE Get Artnet to DMX MUMUTH

<2016-04-20 Wed 10:15>–<2016-04-20 Wed 10:30>

DONE Fix CEUS 28.04, Bösendorfer

Bösendorfer, Artemis

<2016-04-27 Wed 07:25>

DONE For Exibition [11/11]

  • [X] AIL Gerhard check
    • [X] see if video monitor can be mounted portrait
    • [X] Check usb playback directly from usb stick
  • [X] Aggregat Keys
    • [X] Modify neuro patches for MIDI
    • [X] Decide if MIDI or osc
  • [X] Aggregat Video
    • [X] 12 USB 3 Sticks
    • [X] Parameter of 9 Videos?
    • [X] Proposition: 3x3 Video of existing parametrisations (Gerhard, David, Michael) subdivided in N (12 for ex) clips, with short fade in and fade out then white for 30 minutes
    • [X] How long are the videos? 1 Minute?
    • [X] copy on the sticks only the videos which are played?
    • [X] Switches, cables, and power cables extensions
    • [X] Prepare shell script
    • [X] 9 fix IPs
  • [X] Aggregate Headphones
    • [X] Jackfield, Michele
    • [X] 9x9!
    • [X] dimensions are dependent of hardware
    • [X] aluminium plate, holes ca. 4 - 5 cm. border + 4 cm (as holes) at least, black jacks, mdf plates (10 - 15 cm)
    • [X] Invoice an Gerhard, Inffeldgasse
    • [X] low table
    • [X] 81, soundfiles
  • [X] Aggregate Loudspeakers
    • [X] Loudspeaekr systems
  • [X] Aggregate Hammer
    • [X] Wood Buy
    • [X] Gerhard brings metal Ls
    • [X] Cablebinder
    • [X] Arduino programming
    • [X] Cables
    • [X] Ask Giulio how to reduce? Ask about how the software reduces, filters? Maybe based on Velocities?
  • [X] Aggregate Feedback
    • [X] Test in IEM
    • [X] 2 Mikros and 2 Subwoofers
    • [X] Cross Connected
  • [X] Aggregate Bulbs
    • [X] Finish and parametrise Dynamical System
    • [X] Dimmer Test
    • [X] Prepare patch for dimmer control
    • [X] Buy Bulbs + Fassung + cabel (shuko)
    • [X] Artnet to dmx from MUMUTH
  • [X] Wall graphics
    • [X] Parameters of neuro?
    • [X] svgs?
  • [X] Rebody
    • [X] Michael, sony cube?
    • [X] DVD player IEM + headphones (closed AKG)
  • [X] Windkanal
    • [X] Which Videos
      • [X] Video Michael
      • [X] Video Gerhard
      • [X] How? Together?
      • [X] Audio over subwoofer?
    • [X] Wall is the wall in Aggregat Hammer last Wall

Exhibition Stockholm

TODOs

  • KMH Gerhard

    <2017-09-28 Thu 16:30>

  • DONE Ask Gerhard for maps and info for participants
  • DONE Gerhard Facebook event?
  • Audiorama Testing and setup

    <2017-10-02 Mon 16:00>–<2017-10-02 Mon 22:00>

  • DONE Test M64 avb with daniel petersgasse
  • DONE Send MOTU to Gerhard
  • DONE Ask stefan for avb motu m64
  • DONE Send Jackfield to Gerhard

    <2017-07-03 Mon 10:00>

  • DONE Raspi get to work alone
  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-05-05 Fri 15:30>–<2017-05-05 Fri 16:00>

  • Marian, Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-03-21 Tue 14:00>–<2017-03-21 Tue 14:30>

  • Meeting Marian, Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-03-14 Tue 14:00>–<2017-03-14 Tue 14:30>

  • DONE Ask IOhannes and Markus about tests with wilma
  • DONE Prepare page on COMPASS

    See template at: https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/94538/329573

    • priamry upper media element photo inflatabel + audio Gerhard
    • A bit of text to the case study. not complex stuff. little about the thing itself (DIS), more about what we are interested in, the apparatus and the difficulty of knowing where and when we are
    • Text

      Scattering describes the process in which a particle with high energy called beam collides with another, the target. In the deep inelastic scattering the energy of the beam is so high that the target breaks apart revealing its constituting elements. Usually, in physics, the collection of the smaller, maybe simpler, parts something can be broken into is said to be its "spectrum". Very much like when we speak of the spectrum of a sound when we calculate which sum of single frequencies it equals to.

      At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing and understanding the characteristics of the spectrum of the proton, a primary building block of atoms and of the all matter with which we can interact with. A very high energy beam of elementary particles called muons (a type of heavier electrons) collides with the target protons which breaks into its spectrum, the quarks. These spray into the 50 meter long spectrometer, where they cause effects which could be detected.

      In opposition to the somewhat childish but seemingly effective strategy to analyse something by breaking it into pieces to see 'how it works', stands the fact that in this case the products of this breaking apart remain actually ineffable. These touch into the very essence of the problematic mode of existence of the quantistic world, being bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty. To shine on how the indeterminacy of these processes seems to infect the whole apparatus of the COMPASS experiment is the focus of this case study. As apparatus we intend not only the spectrometer as a measuring device, but the whole aggregate of scientific theories, technical tools and social interactions the experiment is embedded into. In particular we observe how the "reconstruction" process, mediated by multiple steps of re-interpretation and interpolation of the data, is not only a necessary step of analysis, but also a generative transformation which produces new forms.

      • Rests

        The spatial and temporal sensibility seems to drag the instruments' themselves into a grey zone from which it is apparently not possible to know exactly where and when they are. Further, the extreme specialisation and compartmentalisation (in conjunction with the competition under different research groups) makes it very difficult to understand which analysis and reconstruction processes are applied and which effect these have on the data.

        Problem with analysis sum of parts = obejct

        neutrality of data?

        data are facta?

        indeterminacy is interpolation is generative

        dynamical system as complexification

        fragmentary / sand / non-haptic

    • DONE Write about the metaphor of how the work with COMPASS was

      Our experience of working together with CERN's researchers bears some particularities.

      The utter specialisation and compartmentalisation of the researchers causes an extreme fragmentation. As with the fragments produced by the collision events, it is difficult to get a hold on concrete and definitive statements. In conjunction with the marked competition between the different research groups and even within the same group, the reconstruction of how analysis and interpretation processes are used and what significance these have on the data, is a too complex task. Most data conditioning and analysis algorithms are used mostly as block boxed functions by the researchers.

      The spatial and temporal sensibility of the instruments, which are almost required touch into Heisenberg's uncertainty regions of space-time, seems to drag the instruments' themselves into a grey zone of existence: it seems apparently not possible to know exactly the wheres and whens of things. Included are, for example, the positions in space and time of the particle collisions passages as well as the positioning of same detectors within the spectrometer.

      Uncertainty and abstractness is not only a quality of quantistic processes, it apparently permeates every dialogue. Extreme caution is taken in order to avoid formulations which might reveal too much confidence.

      Only a statistic of inquiries will produce a measurable response.

      In some way the impression is that the qualities of the phenomena affect the way of thinking and working of the researchers studying them.

      • Rests

        functionality of the undeterminacy

    • DONE Causality

      We are provided with data containing approximate time and positions of detected particle passages through the detector. These space-time positions are called hits. A set of hits is contained in every detected collision event, recording the passage of the fragments of the broken proton. Our data set contains thousands of those events.

      We are left alone with this material, a collection of points placed in a four dimensional space which is mostly void. To bridge the gaps and navigate through the emptiness a rule of relationship if inferred; a rule of "causality" defining which points are interdependent from each other. This rule is an assertion, emerging from of the uncomfortable situation of not knowing where and when things are. It results in a function which joins points, interpolating between them, structuring a space: its reiterated application is a generating function which produces coherence and form.

      The transposition is constructing figures as well as finding them in the material it is applied to. Therefore, even if it is an isomorphism, it's action is not neutral: this characteristic which is of all transformative functions becomes evident when it departs from canonical i.e. accepted interpretations of what lies "behind" the data or how it should be read.

      Each hit is connected with a line to the nearest other along each of the 8 directions in the four dimensional space-time. The process is repeated for each event.

      Eventually a series of thousands of figures are drawn which collect the traces of the application of this function this data.

      This is the projection of the x-t plane of the figure generated for the event 5252 in spill 198

      • Rests

        data inexistent without being read

        In the attempt of the construction of a figure out of fragments, a rule of relationship is inferred, a law of "causality".

        The meaning is the operation itself. The form generating interpolating function. The fact the the interpolation, the inferrence of relationships which bridge the void space between points the reiterated application of this function generates form, produces coherence, meaning.

        establishing relationships produces figures. active, non neutral, part of the transformation points to lines to figure a system is

        bridge the void

        iterative application, the repeated computation

        what it says is not more than what it is

    • DONE find background links for the compass page

      4 - 5

      1. https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/tracking/dc/experts/Drift_Chamber__Principle_of_operation.html#drift
      2. https://www.particlezoo.net/
      3. http://wwwcompass.cern.ch/compass/publications/papers/cern-ph-ep_2007-001/compass_spec_070330.pdf
      4. chart_2006_4.jpg
    • DONE determine which event links are relevant to compass
    • Lansner Gerhard

      Computational neuroscience is the study of the peripheral and central nervous system by simulation and emulation of neural tissue. Neurons are cells specialized in chemical and electrical communication. They form large networks in the central nervous system – the brain. It is assumed that the brain does not work in terms of algorithms but instead operates as a complicated network of interconnected dynamic nodes. About two thirds of the human brain consist of the cortex, which is responsible for functions such as flexible thinking, impulse inhibition, and several forms of memory. The data used in this case study was generated in simulations aiming at discovering principles of memory storage that are compatible with known cortical anatomy and dynamics. More particularly this concerns the dynamics of mechanisms enabling the storage and recall of memories. The work at the Lansner lab focuses on attractor networks, which have interesting computational capabilities and are based on a learning principle that is compatible with biology.

      The focus of this case study was a data set tracing the activities of a trained network of 2430 neurons exhibiting spontaneous self-activation of stored memory patterns. The network is organised in nine populations of neurons, each representing a pattern. Usually memory recall is triggered by external simuli but this network remembered (activated) the stored patterns spontaneously. This attracted our curiosity, especially concerning the sequence of activation, which priviledged certain patterns. What kinds of dynamics may be at play that make the network string its associations together in this sequence? We approached the question by observing the correlation variations of a selection of 9 representative neurons per pattern, resulting in a 81-dimensional coefficient space. Then we developed a dynamical system to reduce this space to two dimensions, which formed the basis for the dynamic visualisation. The synchronous sonification is based directly on the neuronal activities, creating a complementary perspective on the behaviour of the network.

  • DONE Explain DS of AIL
    • with graphic?
    • with animation?
    • animation of masses as in sc (with colour)
    • Text

      A set of triggers are distributed in the DaTa Rush exhibition. When pressed by the visitors, they activate in the installation they are near to. Also, on some installations can be acted upon directly, like on the field of headphone plugs or on the piano. But the effect of this action is not limited to this local effect.

      The simulation of dynamical system is part of the exhibition. This system is composed by seven interacting masses resembling a very simple mechanical approximation of a string.

      There is a correspondence between a node in the system and its energy with one of the works in the exhibition and its activity. Pressing a trigger will give a push to the associated mass, exciting it and inducing an energy growth which, in turn, is reflected by the installation's action or reaction.

      A microphone hanging from the ceiling picks up the sounds in the gallery as well as the vibrations coming from the street just outside the gallery, e.g. the trembling produced by the passing trams. According to the energy of all these oscillations and resonances, one node in the string pushed an pulled.

      A trigger, an action on the installations or a loud vibration in the gallery will not only excite one of the masses, it will also inject energy into the whole system. As all elements are interconnected by their reciprocal interactions, energy will propagate through the nodes and therefore through the exhibition space. Each action will not remain local: it will spread and leave a trace, possibly causing other installations to react at a later time.

      Metaphorical and actual connections are drawn between the works, the gallery space and the external world as the whole exhibition reveals itself as a system which senses and unfolds, continuously reweaving and regenerating itself. The evolving state of the dynamical system i.e. the energy in each of its nodes, is transposed into the glowing of the bulbs in the dark room in the basement of the gallery, in the "belly" of the exhibition.

      The dynamical system is inspired by the model used of the so-called Fermi-Pasta-Ulam experiment (1953) which has a particular relevance in the history of science. The experiment consists of the simulation of a system of masses placed on a string where the connecting forces contain a non-linear term in addition to a linear (spring-like) force. Due to this term the system is analytically unsolvable, i.e. there is no mathematical tool by which the behaviour its can be described (and therefore predicted) by any well formulated equations. The only possibility to observe its evolution is to simulate it, to compute the movement of all the masses time step after time step. This operation would take an enormous amount of time for a human, but not for a machine. Therefore, the three researchers devised an algorithm which recursively integrates the equations of motion of the system, computing the new positions of all the nodes at very small time steps and programmed it on the MANIAC I, the computer they had at their disposal at the Los Alamos facilities where they where working.

      There was no particular scientific interest in such system at that time. The researchers just had some "spare time" and they had this new tool (the computer) at their disposal: so they did something with it which couldn't be done otherwise. And they where surprised. The evolution of the system did non conform to known rules; instead its behaviour followed previously unseen and unpredictable paths. These observations gave birth to new theoretical perspectives and laid the groundwork for what later will be chaos and complexity theory, one of the most important fields of study a cross many research fields nowadays.

      This was a pioneering experiment also with regard to the methods which it used. In fact, it is the first experiment where the computer played a central role in the development or falsification of theories. It was the first time that an algorithm and its the recursive computation was used as a theoretical speculative tool: it was the beginning of computational physics, the so-called "third way" of doing research, between theoretical and experimental physics.

    • Rests

      It does not offer one specific static chosen perspective: as it is in continuous movement there is a sort of undeterminacy.

      afford a

      it acts on the space it is part of

      site specific

      draws connections towards external

      It becomes part of the space it lives in the gallery the whole gallery space is part of the system,

      the state of the system is reflected by the state of the exhibition as a whole

      drawing connections into the nearby street where the passing trams

      is part

      the interconnection

      Further, acting on some of installations, e.g. pressing a key of the piano or

      Tram passing by

      Some of the installtions

      The time based installations of DaTa Rush exhibition

  • DONE Explain DS of Lansner
    • with different example parametrisations videos
    • text as much as I need (pop overs?, not important)
    • behaviour
    • interpolating function
    • complexification
    • relation to indeterminacy?
    • Text

      One of the data sets we worked with in this case study is two hundred seconds of activity of a simulated neural network undergoing memory recall processes. This particular neural network simulation was of particular interest to us as it revealed an inherent behaviour which manifested itself in the spontaneous, i.e. without external stimuli, self-activation of the stored memory patterns.

      Seeking ways to grasp this behaviour we focused on the mutual relationships or interdependence nodes have with each other across the network by computing the value of correlation of their activities. These values, calculated for each pair of the 81 neurons in the network, constructs a multidimensional structure which evolves, folding and unfolding in time. This abstract structure is placed in a space whose dimensions express the relationship between all possible node pairs (81! = 81*80*79*….*2*1).

      In order to visualise this structure we searched for an operation which would transform a high dimensional object into a two dimensional figure. To this end, we devised another dynamical system, which would accomplish this specific task in an iterative process. This system is formed by 81 mutually interacting masses placed on a plane, one for each neuron. The magnitude of the force each mass pair is subject to reflects the correlation value that neuron pair has: higher correlations means greater attraction and therefore smaller distances. A set of correlation values of the neural network activity would cause simultaneously all of the masses to move and search positions whose relative distances to all other masses corresponds to that node's relationship to all other nodes. Similarity and interdependence are transposed into geometrical distance relationships. Eventually the dynamical system will result in an arrangement of the masses which reflects the best possible two dimensional approximation of the multi-dimensional structure, constructing a figure which folds and unfolds in time.

      Mathematically, solutions of this operation, if any, are mostly non-unique: the task the dynamical system is set to take on is a hard problem. And when the system is pushed to the limits of its capabilities to interpolate between the two spaces, these difficulties become evident and the non-neutrality of the operation we are performing clear. The dynamical system suddenly becomes material. It evolves from a problem solving, dimension reducing or simplifying operator and reveals itself as form generating agent; pushing back. Its distinct own behaviour becomes apparent.

      In the end we find ourselves dealing with a more complex situation: two interacting and inextricably interwoven dynamical systems whose responsibilities in the result cannot be exactly separated. Clearly we formulated a transposition into a complexification, whose principal value lies less in the reduction function or in the calculation of an output, but in bringing to light qualities of such systems which are inherently incalculable.

      We shed light on this situation by looking at it from different perspectives: we find multiple parametrisations for the forces and the figure's visual rendering. The result is a field of figures, artefacts whose mutual relationships constructs a network through which incomputable qualities of the involved elements shimmer through.

      • Rests

        as an incompressible surplus of the simulation.

        The search of the best possible approximation, parameters of the model and its visual rendering need to be continuously re-adjusted. Changes in these parameters have a dramatic effect on the stability of the

        And in questioning our basic assumption that phenomena can be isolated i.e. that observation or possibly even the context in which they appear are not in mutual relationship with them.

        (different parametrisations) produces a field of more complex objects which opens a space by filling in void between them. A void which can then be interpolated and therefore re-proproduce the behaviour from which it is started from.

        transformations are never neutral

        which let the eigen-behaviour of the neural network shimmering through.

        of problems.

        This situation acts back on the observers, on us, questioning our reasons and our methods. It evidences complexity as an inherent quality of the phenomena we are dealing with as arising from a network of interacting and indissolubly linked inhomogeneous elements which, as behaviour

        problem making

        Problem solving vs. complexification

        complexity as uncalculable, intangible?

        incomputable qualities of the date become evident.

        • struct

        interpolation, apporximation

        productive

        non problem sovling

        complexification

        non reductive

        multiple parametrisations (of which we see two below)

        field of interrelated objects (transpositions)

        open a space where incomputable qualities of the data and of the process which generated them in this case become evident

  • DONE Find 3 images for start page.
  • DONE Fix Parisi / Hanns Holger

    Mention TP book cecile and schwab contact. she didn't have time.

  • DONE Ask Sally for final event
    • if she has interest and she could come and she would contribute something
  • DONE Ask Agostino for catalogue
    • artistic statement
    • what do we want with the
    • object between theory and practice
    • experimental object which also reflects upon itself
    • its about the positions which are carried from the works generated in the project
    • if it is an interesting thing to write something which will appear in the catalogue
  • DONE Add event hypercolumns
  • DONE describe hypercolumns in the rc / link to the tp @ rc for the final
  • DONE Test Raspi for audio streming + m-audio + 2 mics
  • DONE Ask IOhannes for more than 2 channels streaming / aternative to darkice
  • DONE Test with gstreamer: see IOhanns mail
  • DONE Launch Event
  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-05-23 Tue 14:00>–<2017-05-23 Tue 14:30>

  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-06-06 Tue 11:00>–<2017-06-06 Tue 11:30>

Works

  • We have
    1. Jackfield
    2. Speaker Matrix (not in that form)
    3. Steel rods compass (NO)
    4. Inflatable Compass (Where is it?)
    5. Neuro videos
    6. Piano Neuro (only with real piano)
    7. Piano Cluster (only with real piano)
    8. Cluster Drawings
    9. Lamps Dynamical systems (upgrade to 32 lamps)
    10. Hypercolumns (neuro)
    11. Phases Video neuro
    12. Causality report (images or video)
    13. Strings (genes) video
    14. Genes Drone
    15. Rebody video
  • We will do
    1. Audiorama streaming
    2. Piano network neuro
    3. Hammers Dome of Visions ?
    4. Video Compass Trajectories ?
    5. Genetic Knots 3d prints ?
    6. Cluster density tracking sonification
    7. Gerhard recorded steel rods conditioned reinstallation
  • We have

    3 audio works with loudspeaekers

    • sure
      1. inflatable
      2. bremen (audio + video LS)
      3. rebody (audio + video LS)
      4. genedrone (audio only LS)
      5. nina's video (video + LS)
      6. jackfield (audio HP)
      7. score
      8. causality report diptic
      9. catalogue (HP)
    • not sure
      1. metaboliser (HP)
      2. further neuros
      3. continuous collision
  • Raspberry Nets
    • ssh

      login with ssh pi@192.168.171.212 passw : raspberry

    • vnc

      login in the pi with ssh and start the vncserver: x11vnc then from client: vncviewer 192.168.171.212:0 pssw:123456 for connecting also from osx: x11vnc -display :0 -noxrecord -noxfixes -noxdamage -forever -passwd 123456

    • jack

      inhstall jack and qjackctl start qjackctl

    • icecast / darkice

      start icecast icecast2 -c icecast.xml and darkice: darkice -c darkice2.cfg config files is in: src/TP/stockholm/raspi

  • DONE Ask Martin installation autostart
  • DONE Checklist to take to Stockholm
    • headphones (3/4)
    • installations (Martin) IoS
    • scores
  • DONE Check material from IOS with Martin.
    • State "WAITING" from "TODO" [2018-02-12 Mon 11:24]
      waiting Martin's answer
    • small text for concept description
    • photos
    • sounds?

Presentations

  • Transpositions (beginning)

    collect points to be discussed informally during the event's opening

    • Final
      1. Beginning: (G) Hello etc. short
      3. End: practicalities (G)

      Slave to data (sonofication / visualisation)

    • Gerhard's
      • What were the starting points, motivations, expectrations, utopies of the project?
      • Artistic research as critique of the concept of research
      • Concept of transposiitons used nucleus of cristallisation
      • How can results of research processes (or the processes themselves) be shared? How are things framed
      • What is a research event?
      • How did the work with the scientists go? Wide range of disciplines, similarities, differences?
    • David
      • what data did we work with? (data sets)
      • what does it mean to work with data (as) "material"?
      • the role of errors (in the data, in understanding, in their understanding etc.).
      • how can results of artistic (research) processes be shared? (couples to Gerhard's question)
      • the concept of transposition as dialectical instrument
      • how does a transposition differ from a sonification/visualisation?
      • which "tools" did we use to approach the data? (audification, dynamical systems etc.)
    • Transposing the role and notion of Data: towards Facta

      Data is at the core of a process. It is a process: which is often ongoing, that is it's not concluded or conclusive. Unstable "Dirty" in the sense that it contains and carries in itself also all the conditions which were influential in its collection. "Dirty" in the sense that it cannot be considered as "self standing".

    • The liquefaction of static objects: stability and transformativity.
      • Liquefying boundaries

        Transposition as transformation, process, and formulation of such, rather then the stable and definite appearance of and artefact.

        as "where the artefact" comes from (the data) is such and important element, the stable "point" or origin around which the works or artefacts revolve around, changed the perspective. The works in themselves are less self-standing, more a sample of an ongoing process. Liquefaction means that objects are transformed into processes, statistic (cristallisation) is encountered with erosion.

      • Liquefaction again

        is that a way we have devised in order to "oppose" scientific praxis with which we were confronted, a way to offer a resistance in the hope (and purpose) to elicit discourse.

      • Is it an implicit offer or elicitation for discourse
      • Liquefaction also necessary of our percpetion of data is not stable

        scientists are not sure….

    • Appropriation is core of our artistic praxis

      Especially in the computer music practice inglubing and digesting attitude Not shared by scientific reseachers: builders

    • Knowledge

      Knowledge does not exist as a static, "object-like" state of something. It does not have an ontology which is disconnected from the person who is carrying it. knowledge actually does not exist as static in time. It is performed, elicited, resonated. Science (and art) produce formulations which afford its generation in who "reads" or experiences those. Knowledge is a kind of induced resonance in the mental structure. I image a very complex piano, with an enormous number of strings, all entangled and intertwined. Artistic or scientific formulations or artefacts induce slight changes in this structure, in this way knowledge sediments in the our system. So that posterior experiences might then elicit that resonances.

      metaboliser is a model of this idea.

  • COMPASS Data Presentation

    Explain the name explain muon explain proton explain proton structure explain spectroscpy explain quark confinemant explain detector

    • Notes for me
      • slide: the compass experiment
        • Hello my name is David Pirrò. I work at the IEM in Graz and am part of the Transpostions team.
        • You might wonder why I am here to talk about COMPASS and not a physicist from CERN
        • We had extreme difficulty of establishing and maintaining a contact with CERN scientists.
        • Luckily, I have a master in theoretical physics and have some study colleagues who worked or work at CERN. In particular my colleague and friend Giulio Sbrizzai who helped in getting in contact with COMPASS.
        • But, when my colleague decided to change and not to work antmore at CERN, well since then our contact break down.
        • So now I'm here and will try to introduce to you the COMPASS experiment.
      • slide: COMPASS
        • In general, COMPASS is one of the experiments in CERN. The projects records data of interactions between particles, the smallest bits of matter we know.
        • This data is the basis for formulations of "rules" or "laws" governing those interaction. Or to adapt existing formulations.
        • In order to introduce to you with more detail with the COMPASS experiment aims at specifically I though a good idea would be to explain its name, by breaking it apart into pieces and see what's inside.
      • slide: muon
        • What is a muon?
        • It's one of the particles in the particles fauna. Why fauna? particles are some many and have some intricate relationships that there is a system that cathegorises them ion different families.
        • The muon for example is a Lepton the same family of the electron and the netrinos. It si charge as the electron. It is much bigger / heavier then the electron (200 times).
        • And it is elementary : means it cannot divided into smaller parts.
      • slide : proton
        • the proton you might know.
        • it forms the core of atoms together with the neutron.
        • it is charged, but most importantly it is non-elementary. That is it is divisible. It is not simple it has a structure. As we know from theory this structure is formed by 3 interacting quarks: 2 so called up quarks and so called down quark
      • slide : structure
        • Investigation of the nature of this structure is the aim of the. That is why the word structure is there
        • and spectroscopy indicates the general procedure adopted. In spectroscopy the object you want to undestand (in this case the proton) is considered as a black box. In order to understand it, the behaviour of this object is probed by eliciting it with a known excitation and observing and charting what comes out. and charting it, that is making a spectrum.
        • At the moment theory does not exactly explain how these components (quark) "sum up" in forming the proton.
      • slide : common
        • As the "inside" of the proton us the research theme here, we need to look into it. And this is done with the method of Deep Inelastic Scattering
        • Scattering in particle physics indicates a general process of interaction which is specific for 2 particles. Hence, COMMON to these two and only to these two (in this case the muon and the proton).
        • Inelastic as opposed to elastic. In elastic scattering the two involved objects would retain their boundaries and structure: like two billiard balls hitting each other. Int the inelastic version of scattering, one of the object trasforms or breaks apart. Whch is what happens here.
        • There is one muon with extremely high energy and velocity, circa 98% of the speed of light.

        is launched with extremely high energy and velocity

    • The COMPASS experiment

      David Pirrò

      Institute of Electronic Music And Acoustics

      University of Music and Performing Arts Graz

    • COMPASS
      • One of the experiments at CERN
      • Investigates various interaction processes between particles

      COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • "Fat" electron : ~ 200 times heavier
      • lepton : elementary : non-divisible

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • forms the core of atoms together with the neutron
      • hadron : non-elementary : it is divisible i.e. it has structure

        • the proton is formed by three interacting quarks:

          2 x u and 1 x d (2 up and 1 down quarks) hold together by gluons


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • The structure of the proton is the main research field of the COMPASS experiment.
      • Spectroscopy indicates the general method employed: measure the response of a system (the proton) as a function of the applied excitation (the muon).
      • Understand how the proton's components "sum up".

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • In order to look into it, the proton is broken apart
        • The name of this method is Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS).
          • Scattering is the general process of interaction between to specific particles.
          • Inelastic as opposed to elastic (e.g. billiard balls) : one particle breaks.
            • a high energy muon is shot at a proton
            • proton breaks apart
            • fragments spray into the detector

      with such high energy that the proton is broken into pieces, instead of being "bounced" off like billiard ball.


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      P7190004.JPG

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      Layout-3D-1L.gif

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      compass_spectrometer_2004.pdf.png

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • Technical device / instrument
        • creates the conditions for scattering processes happen
        • carefully stages them such that they can be observed
      • Practice
        • computational analysis
        • physical interpretation
      • feedback process
      • built such that it can be "filtered out" from subsequent calculations
      • its purpose is to record the passage of these fragments (particles) and their characteristics (energy, mass, charge etc.)
      • is is an aggregate of many different types of detectors, which are designed to measure different and specific qualities of the particles passing by
      • also: the whole detector is designed such to be "filtered out".
      • reconstruction process. computational process of analysis and interpretation.

    • Hits

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits.png

    • Trajectories

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj.png

    • Trajectories

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj_mdet.png

    • Vertices

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj_mdet_vert.png

    • Data

      Data sets are organised in events : one event corresponds to one successful muon - proton scattering

      • hits : for each of the detectors the recorded passing of a particle. Each hit has (x, y, z, t) values.
      • trajectories : the reconstruction of the particles' path through the detector.
      • vertices : the places where particles have interacted with each other.
    • Quarks

      An confinement problem

Travels

  • GRZ -> ARN

    <2017-09-28 Thu 11:30>–<2017-09-28 Thu 15:15>

    • Sockerbruksgrand 16, 6th floor, door code 3820

      <2017-09-28 Thu 17:30>

  • ARN -> GRZ

    <2017-10-08 Sun 06:30>–<2017-10-08 Sun 10:45>

Video

DONE Book

  • State "CANCELLED" from "DONE" [2017-04-17 Mon 18:57]

:ID: 8d2177bf-29aa-435f-bb87-7e3ccf1ac9fd

DONE Deadline Sample Chapter Gerhard

Concepts

  1. Transposition
  2. Noise (Cecile)
  3. Network, Net
  4. Texture (Gerhard)
  5. Behaviour (David)
  6. Figure
  7. Diagram (Michael)
  8. Formulation / Model
  9. Algorithms (Hanns Holger/ David)
  10. Experiment
  11. Datum / Factum / Material
  12. Post-conceptual
  13. Proto-Object (Michael)
  14. Scaling
  15. Modelling
  16. Entanglement (of our works for example, metaphorical)
  17. Networks

Notes

  • Philosophy of change
  • Transformation is change changing the form of the space in which a thing lives
  • Transformation can be "not neutral" (to be defined).
  • If it is "not neutral" then destabilises the objects to which it is applied to
  • The transformed object (or the space in which it lives in due to the transformation) offers different affordances than would and could not be dicovered otherwise.

ToDos

  1. Examples of transpositions in music
  2. Jazz
  3. Neutrality (isomorphism) is context-dependent?

Abstracts

  • On Formulation, Gerhard

    On Formulation: Making Sense of Artistic Practice as Research

    Linguistic formulation refers to the production of spoken or written language. It applies to both the process of formulating a text and the outcome of this process, the text as a particular expression of ideas. Pharmaceutical formulation is the process of producing a drug from different chemical substances according to a formula. Clinical formulation is a provisional explanation of a person’s psychological difficulties. It draws from theory and guides intervention. All three notions of formulation will be useful in introducing the concept of artistic formulation, understood as a process using any means of expression. As opposed to the notion of composition, the proposed concept of formulation implies and affords reformulation, leaving the movement of research uncompleted, open. Formulation, as giving shape to an idea, also promises to dissolve the artificial dichotomy between content and form introduced by rhetoric mainly for pedagogical reasons. There is no idea without formulation and only through formulating it, the idea emerges in the first place, becomes tangible. These deliberations will form the basis for arguing how and why framing and conducting artistic practice as a process of formulation can unleash the epistemic potential of art. The argument will be supported by samples of my artistic practice as a composer and sound artist.

  • Staging Collisions: On Behaviour

    Quarks are not directly observable. Which means that Quarks cannot be seen or measured, not only because their realm of existence has scales which are incommensurable with our world, but also because they don't exist as individual particles as other particle do, for example electrons. If even with the finest measuring devices it is sheer impossible for us to actually observe them, how is it even possible to formulate their existence? What is indeed observable are slight changes in the other elements of the system they are immersed in, the other particle's states and trajectories. These changes can only be accounted for by postulating the existence of Quarks.

    Although Quarks are in general objects which live in worlds very far from our everyday reality, processes of identification and definition often follow similar paths. Objects are defined through the variations they show and produce in the mutual interaction with their environment, by something I will call the behaviour they exhibit. The term behaviour is borrowed with the meaning it has in physics or mathematics: it denotes a sequence of states a system undergoes over time. Behaviour is the unfolding of change, the time ordered variations of a system, decoupled from cause and effect. It is the particular path the variations follow and the identifying characteristic of what is being observed.

    Scientists create the appropriate conditions to elicit and expose behaviour, be it in vitro or colliding protons with atoms, and record the differences arising from the mutual interactions of the involved components. When those differences reveal themselves to be coherent and consistent enough, behaviour is isolated while the observed system is put into a different perspective from which it is looked at. It is transposed into a different space yielding new theories and experiences. This operation is the origin of a production of different materialities and the emergence epistemic objects which can be formulated and eventually defined.

    I will argue that artistic research practice could be conceived as providing a specific tool set particularly apt for creating moments of collision, dilating the time between the markings of cause and effect, staging interactions and exposing behaviour, eventually setting the conditions for performing operations of transposition resulting in the emergence of new materialities. I will support this argument on the basis of the "Transpositions" Project and from my own artistic practice as a sound artist.

    • Notes

      identifying behaviour places the whole system into another perspective

      Dieter Mersch: Diaphan, "Epistemologies of aesthetics"

      Time as essence of behaviour

      producing differences and exposing behaviour staging the environment for matter to emerge.

      Vieldeutigkeit

      In chemistry, researchers describe materials and their properties by observing how these react, or behave, with respect to other materials.

      subtractive process, taking out the causes.

      behaviour can be generally defined as a sequence of states an entity (system) undergoes in time. Behaviour is change, it's he change of an entity with respect of its surrounding. This sequence being generally thought of paths a entity's (system) state undergoes through time.

      By this tentative definition Behaviour is an "abstract object" or construct which is build from "change" or variation. The kind of "change" being the characteristic property of the behaviour being observed.

      colliding

      Something becomes observable when it produces it displays changes in its state or produces differences in the interaction with it environment.

      As for quarks they only become observable by their side-effects, by the indirect effects of their behaviour or the structure of their interaction. Quarks are not observable directly due the "quark confinement" phenomenon, just thought the effects of their interactions with them selves of with other particles.

      Behaviour produces changes, differences. Behaviours transposes the predicted path or property of a system to another one, unexpected, producing a new reality for the system.

      Producing materiality.

      Drawing from examples of my artistic practice as a sound artist, I will

      Chemical behaviour. Chemical properties of materials are determined by studying the behaviours of the material in chemical reactions.

    • Shorter version

      David Pirrò: Staging Collisions: On Behaviour

      Quarks are not directly observable, not only because their realm of existence has scales, which are incommensurable with our world, but also because they do not exist as individual particles as other particle do, for example, electrons: even with the finest measuring devices it is impossible for us to directly observe them. We, however, can observe slight changes in the states and trajectories of other particles within a system, deviations which can only be accounted for by formulating their existence.

      One may use this approach to stipulate that any object may be defined through the variations it produces in the mutual interaction with their environment, that is, the behaviour their exhibit within a system. Borrowed from physics or mathematics, the term ‘behaviour’ denotes a sequence of variations of states a system undergoes over time decoupled from cause and effect. Behaviour, thus, describes a particular path and identifying characteristics of what is being observed.

      Scientists create the appropriate conditions to elicit and expose behaviour, be it in vitro or colliding protons with atoms. When behaviour is identified the system observed is transposed into another experiential space, yielding new theories and observations. In this chapter, I will argue that, likewise, artistic research practice could be conceived as providing a specific tool set to create moments of collision, dilate the time between the markings of cause and effect, stage interactions and expose behaviour until eventually such transpositions may also result in the emergence of new materialities. I will support this argument using examples of my own artistic practice as a sound artist.

  • Transpostions Chapter David
    • Todos

      Remove aesthetics as much as possible as to sensual or aesthetic obejct into artefact or artistic work

      talk about trying to keep the text in a suspension, between statement and the unclearness: using both statements (also provocationally) but also intersecting (maybe contraddicting specifications) keep in a an abeyance state

      expression as well my difficulty to talk about it in this form. In a way it is also a sort of transposition.

      Oscillation

      and Recursion (substituting reeentrancy?)

      "knot" of ideas

      speculators

      incompleteness

      a transpositions seems to depict a gesture which seems common in artistic research in general: "launch" something into the void and then try to reconstruct the way back to the starting point.

      mutations induced, errors induced in order to "see" the correct, the original (or origninator)

      trasposition is iotself a generator, not a solution or a component or a tool. It is a position which once placed continues to move i norder to find its "right" place.

      indeterminacy, unshureness the state of non-solution is a value not a problem.

      Partiality keeps the movement open: resposible for the recursive process of oscillation between different states.

      Keeping the state blurred.

      phsyics resolved the difficulty of bringing together to incommensurarte things with oscillations.

      incommensurability lead to indeterminacy

      reasonign at the same time upon the manner in which we (or I) have understood artistic resarch: as a putting something somewhere where there is nothing, a claim, a speculation and artefact adn then try to reconstruct the way back to the starting point. Trying to reconstruct the narrative of the actual research process we have undertaken.

      at same time exposing the difficulty to transform (or transpose) my artistic parcatic adn expereince into the propositional field for the purpose of this text.

      a transpositijon reveals itself as such only when relation as made, connection drawn

      relation -> interaction?

      it seems a recurring phenomenon in my experience of artistic researcher: first operate, state and generate a position a trace of a process somewhere, and then, afte, try to reconstruct the path that brought me there.

      there is always something that is tranposed, an original somethinfg to depart from.

      space opened by the relatioships between transpositions this has to do with the oscillations, it's not only space it is bahviour, path, it is active.

      transpositions are condensations

      Transpositions present themselves as definite artistic works,

      tehy are defintie works, but unfold they transpositional essence in the relation, to other works, transpositions or to their original.

      when the affordance of relation is unfold

      condensations

      Artistic artefacts, are transpositions

      • old exerpts

        ftrom old difractijon end:

        A transposition is a position which has undefined coordinates, but exists in relation to something other, it is a difference position. Similarly, the following is a set of collected ideas and thoughts which relate to each other by difference or overlapping. These thoughts are the result of the diffraction, the breaking apart. Still, in the end, by putting these together and in relation, I hope to offer the potential of a pattern of interference to appear.

      • old quarks

        That is, measurements giving a hint of the interaction of the detector with an object which seems to be coherently interpreted as a behaviour which can be ascribed to one specific object.

      • old behaviour

        It is the particular path the variations follow moving from the point of cause to the mark of effect.

        Behaviour is an perceptual construction.

        The object we interact with is defined through the variation the system composed by us and the object itself show and produce in the mutual interaction with our bodies or the environment.

      • old dynamical systems

        ; on a different level I try to understand in which consequences this approach has on my and potentially others' composition practice.

      • old transposition

        It has a distance and interaction with another transposition which defines where it is.

      • old to Transpose

        To transpose is a verb. Etymologically it is derived from the latin "trans-ponere", to place across, on the other side of. Transponere is a verb indicating an action. The action to take something and move it from its initial position to another position which lies beside, across an another side of its initial placing. It is something which is done, performed onto an object. It is defined from the initial and the final positions reached. Transposing implies action which is external to the object which is moved. The entity performing the action is in the position to observe and read the initial and the final states of which it has exact knowledge.

        Transposing and transposition seem to have different meanings. A transposition has unclear coordinates. Transposing is an action between two defined positions. In the following I will try to take into account this difference.

        A transposition is not a result of transposing.

      • old resonnance

        oscillatory

        transpositions construct a space

        open a space

        differential space

        The debate around aesthetics and its definition is very broad. I will leave this discussion to who is more proficient of those themes and will not go into any detail here. Still, as I'm using the term, I think it's necessary to at least try to give a hint of how I understand aesthetics and aesthetic objects. This understanding is deeply influenced by my artistic practice.

        Aesthetics is the study of perception. Perception is intended as that active process responsible for the formation of

        includes the workings human sensing apparatus as well as processes of learning, memory and expectation.

        how these processes concur in forming that what we call perception

        I don no advocate for a segregation between cognition or thinking and perception. Different processes which do interact. The separation is merely rhetoric.

        might be merely rhetoric distinction, but it serves me to better explain what I mean.

        non discoursive means, non propositional

        no computation but resonance

        Resonances and restructuring

        not semantic

        Primarily appeals to perception.

        no representatonal function of perception

        active process

      • old differentiality

        To

        It is network that afford they have to be followed and performed

        Identifying

        still exhibit an emergent behaviour which remains as an aesthetic phenomenon as it

        remain unstable

      • correspondences

        as in the whole such in the small

        complexity stretches out from the object to its surrounding

      • old reentrancy -> recursion

        time aspect -> non static

        continuous reconstruction reiteratied reconstruction

        recursion is ongoing it is not a state recursion is a time pheonmenon interaction is recursion

        Recursion is a term used in computing which indicates a program which can safely be stopped in the middle of its execution to restarted again before its previous executions completed. Once the reentered executions have finished, all the previous invocations of the program resume.

        Differentiation as an operator of scientific research practice might be seen as a reentrant function. While formulating the rule expressing the differential behaviour of the examined data field, it recalls itself in seeking differential behaviour between the rule being developed and the expectations and already known set of theories. In a way it continuously regenerates the context out of which the experiment and the data have been produced. This might result in a sort backward cascade of differential operations. Once completed, that is once the last called operation results in a rule which can be confirmed (or falsified), the cascade is followed forward again leading to the confirmation (or falsification) of a new rule.

        The purpose of this operator being eventually the development of a grammar of rules by which formulating knowledge in form of propositions.

        Complexification as an operator of the production of transpositions, puts objects into relation with each other, generating compounds. These objects which bring their context with them, interact, modifying each other and the whole net of relationships they are in. Possibly unpredicted connections might appear restructuring the whole net the compound is built of and the context it appears in.

        In this sense complexification is as well a reentrant function. It produces compounds which stand in relation to each other, but whose relation is not differential. Instead it generates a net of interactions which produce a behaviour which remains am aesthetic phenomenon, irreducible to be expressed otherwise.

      • Incompleteness / undeterminacy
      • recursion

        stretches over the boundaries of a confined idea or work or hyerarchical level

        Recursion stretches out of the confinement of one set of elements, it infects all levels of

    • Diffraction

      In classical physics, diffraction describes the phenomenon occurring when a wave encounters an obstacle. In particular, the term is used to indicate denote what happens when light waves bend around the corner of a slit. Experiments examining diffraction effects were an important moment in history of physics, marking the passage from what was thought to be a strict division between wave phenomena and the behaviour of particles, to the the a more fluid concept of materiality. The exceeding of this border suddenly brought together into one essence two substances which before were not only different, but unrelated, incommensurate. A collision which produced an entirely new state of matter, something that eludes both the the wave and particle categories and is not reducible to their sum, something that, with respect to those categories, is intrinsically indeterminate: quantum matter.

      I believe that the concept of "transposition" shares some aspects similar to this kind of matter; and I think that physics could be a model in how to deal with concepts or phenomena eluding the categories which we are trained to think in.

      Diffraction literally means disrupting, breaking something apart or into its constituent parts. The light wave which collides with the slit on its path, is broken by it. This breaking is not only metaphorical, but actual in the sense that the light ray looses, for a moment at the collision its coherent image and appears as the collection of quanta (particle-waves) it is. Immediately this collection undergoes a reconstruction governed by the laws of interaction of the parts are subject to. This reorganisation process results in the appearance of the well known interference patterns. Observing these pattern, confronting these with assumptions, marking differences to these, are a trace of the inner workings, revealing the kind of interactions within and behaviour of the light phenomenon itself. As a different image of the light ray is constructed, eventually the observed phenomenon undergoes itself a transformation: it is transposed into something different. We speak no more of particles of light, nor of waves.

      I regard this text as a diffraction. The object being diffracted is the concept of "Transposition" and the obstacle, the slit which it encounters being the need to formulate this very text.

      While writing this text I try to understand my own practice in terms of transposition. In doing so I realise that its concept becomes a complex entaglement, a compound of various elements interacting with each other. There is my scientific background in physics, my artistic background in experimental electronic music and my practice in artistic research in particular in the project "Transpositions" (in the following as TP) of which I am part at the time of this writing. All of these elements are tightly connected in their particular and personal appearance. Their relation with each other is so strong that taking one away would maybe make my argument clearer, but in some way it would collapse it in a state which would capture some limited aspects of its construction.

      My intent is therefore not to provide the reader with a "solution", i.e. a sharp cut definition of the concept of transposition which would then be ready to be instrumentalised. Instead, I allow the idea of "transposition" to be an attractor of images, metaphors, thoughts, definitions and statements becoming a knot of elements hold together by explicitly of implicitly drawn connections. I lay out a field of fragments, products of the diffraction, which are in relation to each other, overlap or maybe are even in opposition: instead of delineating a completed path, I would like to leave to end open to the reader to construct and re-construct an image of "transposition", offering the potential for a pattern of interference to emerge. I will try a "weak measurement" of the idea of transposition.

      So, on one side the text reflect a quality of a transposition which I perceive as fundamental to its generative potential: that of being indefinite position in all or some ways, to be a site which exists as relative to something other as a difference position. On the other, more pragmatically, in this way I try to cope with the difficulty I encounter in translating my experiences as an artist researcher into the propositional form of a theoretical text. I meet this difficulty trying to transform this text into a transposition itself.

    • Weak Measurement

      In quantum mechanics measuring a phenomenon also means to cause a change in what is observed. More specifically, the effect of measurement is to collapse the observed into a state which is different from the one it was in before, a state which is only a partial component of the original complete phenomenon. Measurement has thus a dramatic effect on the object and reveals only a limited aspect of the phenomenon; the complete image of which remains inaccessible.

      For example, reconsidering the experiments on diffraction, the dramatic effect of measurement is particularly evident in the double slit experiment. In this experiment, there is an incoming beam of electrons (of photons i.e. light) encountering an obstacle, a wall pierced by two parallel slits. After the wall there is a screen on which the known interference patterns are visible, as the particles have also wave characteristics. Now, we keep the whole experiment the same, but we just add a sensor detecting when and if a particle passes through which slit. As an effect of this measurement, interference patterns on the screen will disappear, as the detector will cause the particle-waves to collapse into their particle state and we will loose their wave qualities. Further, we will measure just what the detector is built to measure, that what we wanted to detect from the start; we are not able to sense something that we are not expecting.

      A "weak measurement" is a type of measurement which tries to interfere as little as possible with the system it observes, thus attempting to reduce the effect of the measurement itself, but also obtaining very little information.

    • Speculations

      Throughout the text, statements are interspersed which have a double nature. On one side, they function as marks placed in a landscape of unsure and moving concepts: they are condensation moments for some line of thought that appears in the text. On the other, they work as speculations: conjectures or hypotheses based on unclear images. I use them as tool in writing this text, placing a trace in a space where I sense an interesting direction of imagination and of thinking and then, a posteriori, trying to reconstruct a path towards it, rejoining with it.

      Transpositions are aesthetic speculations

    • Quarks

      Quarks are subatomic particles which are, in the currently widely accepted "standard model", the constituents of hadrons. Hadrons are, for example, protons or neutrons, the particles which build atoms, together with electrons. The existence of quarks has been postulated by Theoretical Physicist André Petermann in 1963. Their existence has been postulated as there was no evidence of such particle: there was no measurement or data which would directly account for their existence. Quarks are a theoretical construct which tries to account for deviations of expected behaviour of elementary particles which can be observed in experiments.

      Experimental investigations of quarks' existence and their properties began in the late '60 (after their postulated existence). These deep inelastic electron-nucleon scattering experiments, in which an electron is shot which extremely high energy onto a proton or a neutron, showed a particular property of quarks behaviour. The so called "confinement", one of the hard problems of physics.

      As a consequence of confinement, quarks do not appear as free particles as most other particles known to physics. Electrons or photons for example, can be detected, measured as they, or they effects, can be recorded by a suitable detector.

      Quarks instead, cannot be detected; they cannot be sensed by any instrument. And this is not because the insufficient precision of the technology we have at our disposal, it is a characteristic of quarks themselves a consequence of the "confinement" phenomenon.

      One could depict the situation in this way: Imagine a spring, a very strong one, with two end points, A and B. If one tries to take just the end A thus separating it from the spring and the other end, one would pull the spring very hardly. But at one point, the spring would just break leaving us with the situation of having just two springs instead of one and four ends.

      If we call one end quark A and the other quarks B, this simple metaphor depicts very simply how quark confinement works. If we try to analyse just one quark by pulling it out from the system it is in, our action would immediately generate more springs, more ends and more quarks which remain bound to each other by springs. In fact, quarks do appear exclusively in groups forming compounds of two or more interacting quarks. These compounds appear, i.e. are detectable, as whole particles, concealing that they are not "one" object, but a system, formed by quarks interacting with each other.

      So, how is it even possible to formulate their existence if there is not even the possibility of an empirical measurement? If we would not know they existed, we would observe slight changes in the other particle's states and trajectories which fall out of the predictions which we would do with the rules of physics we would know. But, these variations are such that they can be regarded as the trace of one coherent behaviour. This behaviour is the basis on which it is possible to postulate, or even construct, the existence of Quarks.

    • Behaviour

      The term behaviour is borrowed with the meaning it has in physics or mathematics. It's meaning is somewhat underdefined in those disciplines: behaviour is used to indicate the "how" a function or a system evolves from one point or state to another. For example how the function \(1/x\) reaches \(0\) when \(x\) tends to infinity is a behaviour proper to that function and to that function only. Or how the velocity of a mass \(m\) attached to a spring changes periodically in time, is the behaviour specific of that system.

      Behaviour denotes the way state changes from one moment to the next, from one coordinate to the other. Behaviour denotes unfolding of change, the time ordered variations of a system when it proceeds from one state to the other. It is constructed up by differences produced by the system being observed in dependence from the conditions it is placed in. It is the defining characteristic of that particular system and of every other system exhibiting same behaviour.

      Behaviour is the coherency of differences.

      We perceive through differences, our senses have evolved such to be particularly sensible to them and less towards invariant phenomena. For example, static continuous sounds will become inaudible after some time, they will be masked, filtered out by our perceptual system. Whereas sounds which change over time particularly attract our attention. Same applies to our visual perception: an object, even if small, moving fast through our field of view is particularly evident to us. On the other hand, it is known that constant visual stimuli cause the photoreceptors to become unresponsive: that is, we are blind towards static phenomena. Even when there is no change in the object, the coupled system of body and sensing apparatus, is able to produce those differences. We have two eyes and two ears which sense different visual or acoustic images and which we continuously move with imperceptible small movements, changing the our view point, generating different images which our cognitive apparatus then integrates into a coherent image.

      Behaviour is a perceptual construction.

      When we want to know something we interact with it, we collide our bodies and our senses with that object: we look at it, listen to it, touch it, move it. Interaction means the generation of perceivable differences in the states of both involved systems (the perceived and the "perceptor"). Integrating those differences into a coherent image a consistent behaviour defines the object we interact with.

      Interaction elicits behaviour.

      I understand my own artistic practice as the composition of fields of differences which have the affordance of being coherently reconstructed in terms of behaviour. Differences might be found in the specific work itself, that is in the way events in the work relate to each other in time or space, as well as in the relations the work might present towards other artistic works or approaches in the context of computer music. This field of difference therefore is not limited to the work itself, it stretches out from it touching others with which it is in relation to, with which it interacts.

    • Collisions

      A collision is an event limited in time in which two bodies exert forces on each other. Although in common language collision indicates a crash, a dramatic event in which the forces involved are so great that the two objects eventually break apart, generally a collision is independent of the forces involved.

      Collision is a form of interaction.

      Collisions generate compounds.

      Collisions generate complexity.

      In an extended definition, a collision could indicate a bringing together, a in some way forceful contraction of different and maybe opposing, concepts like the idea of a particle and that of a wave. From this collision, out of the interaction of the two idea, something entirely different may emerge, something that is not just the sum of the two.

    • Oscillations

      Transpositions are positions which are relational, objects whose characteristic is to indicate distances to their origin or towards other transpositions. That is, they construct a space from a network of differences.

      A transposition is thus always in relation to something else. Even if it appears as a definite artefact, it affords a movement of rejoining towards something else. An continuous oscillation which recursively reconstructs the path from and to the transposition.

    • Complexity

      As the word behaviour, complexity is a term of unclear definition. It is used throughout different fields of research, but still there is no consensus on its absolute meaning.

      In general, it is used to denote a quality of a system composed of many parts whose reciprocal interactions result in emergent phenomena which exhibit a higher order of variability, greater than the sum of the parts.

      Behaviour is complex.

      Compounds are complex.

      Analytical approaches towards the understanding of phenomena attempt to decompose the observed into its parts, in order to be able to formulate description in terms of involved components. Focusing on pre-selected aspects and consequently filtering out what cannot be conceived, the effect of analysis is to collapse the examined into partial perspectives, failing to grasp the behaviour of complex phenomena.

      Analysis is a strong measurement

      Complexification instead, describes a movement orthogonal to analysis: it is the process of making something even more complex. From my perspective, complexification is a process that tries to keeps intact the phenomenon without breaking it apart and therefore neutralising the interactions between its parts. Instead a complexification brings the observed in interaction with other (possibly also complex) processes or objects. The observation of the products of such interaction, the variations it produces, may result in the appearance of a behaviour which is proper of that configuration: a behaviour which defines that configuration.

      Complexification elicits behaviour

      Complexification means resisting analysis. It means to acknowledge that what is observed might me more than a sum of parts. It means to center focus on interaction processes rather than on the extraction of static qualities. Complexification means to understand interaction as constituent, or even generative, of the observed: an interaction which unfolds in its internals as well as stretching out, towards other objects or processes in its environment.

      In some way, complexification it is a weak measurement technique: in complexifying it is acceptable to know less about the exact constitution of the object, in exchange of keeping its emergent properties intact. The observed it kept in a state of slight indeterminacy in the hope to keep its capacity to interact alive.

      A transposition is not an analysis.

      A transposition is a complexification.

      This text is a complexification.

    • Dynamical systems

      "Composing means to create a world". This is what one of my teachers told me during my study in electronic music and I took that advise literally. So, I began trying to understand what kind of "world" that is which I would like to create.

      In my personal perspective "world" means a complex environment composed of interacting elements: organic, evolving and coherent. Most of all it is something which is constructed out of its perceptible qualities. These expose differences and variations that are such to hint at an organic behaviour of interacting parts it is composed of. I understand my artistic practice as the crafting of algorithmic and computational tools which allow me to compose difference relations between computer generated which posses the perceptual affordances of being reconstructed into the image of a coherent behaviour.

      During my study in theoretical physics I had the chance to engage with the simulation of dynamical systems. From a theoretical definition, dynamical systems are mathematical models which describe how a system evolves in time. They consist of a set of rules formulated in terms of differential equation, governing how a system undergoes state changes during its evolution in time.

      In the collision of these two approaches, the artistic and the mathematical, I have developed tools which would allow me to realise works based on these ideas. I have programmed software with which I can implement and simulate those kind of systems whose evolution in time is translated into sound or images. Central is not the question if the rules responsible of the emergence of complex behaviour could be "read" or "heard" from the result. My aim is to explore under which conditions and to what extent this behaviour translates as a perceptible quality of aural or visual forms of the works. I regard therefore this practice primarily as a sort of experimental aesthetics

    • Transposition

      The term transposition is a noun. It indicates a place which lies aside with respect to another. A transposition has unclear coordinates. It is a position which is defined by the relationship it has to other places, to other positions or objects with which it connects to or interacts with. A transposition always affords a reference to another position, to an "original", to an object which it refers to.

      Transpositions afford connections.

      In the context of this text, transpositions are artistic artefacts. Works that originate from the artistic engagement with an object: a text, a theory or a set of measurement data as in the "Transpositions" research project. The original is used and appropriated as moulding material, extracted from the context it is placed in, reconstructed and inserted into a work which draws different connections: the origin is de-placed, put into an undetermined position.

    • Compound

      A compound is an aggregate state of more elements. Quarks form compound states which present themselves as particles. The elements which form the compound cannot be taken apart, separated from the others without destroying the compound itself or without generating a new compound.

      The elements in the compound are defined by and exist only in the interaction with the other elements.

      A transposition is a compound

    • Data

      In the artistic research project "Transpositions" (TP) scientific data is the object on which we direct our focus. The project investigates the possibilities to generate artistic auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and transformation of scientific data. While I'm writing this text, the project is still ongoing. At present we have already produced many of those forms from different data sets such as simulations of neural networks, or recordings of deep inelastic scattering collisions events at CERN. But, even if we already have worked with this "material" and produced transpositions of it, we still are in the process of understanding not only what we are dealing with, but also how we are approaching it.

      Scientific Data is the result of measurement or a numerical simulation. It is recorded and stored as numbers organised in some sort of matrix. Data means "given" in latin and as such it is usually treated, as a trace and a representation of what has been observed.

      Data is the collection of information produced by the application of a reiterated function, the experiment. It collects the results of probing that what is observed under varying conditions (e.g. different position, times, etc) and thus generating a field of values which are which are variations of each other with the respect to the measuring parameters, the conditions of the experiment, that is of the independent variables of the experiment.

      This differential field contains the trace of the behaviour of the sought phenomenon. Integrating this field of variation would mean re-formulating this behaviour in terms of a rule.

    • Neurons

      During one of the case studies in the TP Project, we have worked with data which was generated by simulations of neural networks. These have been implemented at the department of Computational Biology at the KTH in Stockholm. The data consists of recordings of the evolution of the electric potential at the membranes of the neurons in a modelled network evolving in time. These models are in themselves dynamical systems exhibiting emergent properties which are of great interest to the researchers as they provide the basis for understanding how our brain is able to perform complex functions.

      While to a certain extent engaging with the scientific research questions and methodologies which are part of the production and the analysis of theses data sets, we attempted various forms of transposition in which we followed paths often orthogonal to researchers' methods. In particular, we have chosen to concentrate on the behaviour inscribed in the time evolution of the system, stretching it and zooming into particular events. Analysis methods usually employed by researchers on this data aim to reduce its complexity and extract set of quantities expressing some overall statistical quality, but neglecting locality and isolated processes.

      In one particular transposition we have used the correlations of neurons with each other. Correlation is a measure of how much the activity of one neuron is related or similar to that of any other neuron in the same network: it is a measure of the mutual relationship or interdependence of different nodes in the network. These values calculated for each pair of the 81 neurons of the network we focused on, constructed a high-dimensional (81! = 81*80*79*….*2*1 dimensions) evolving structure, folding an unfolding in time.

    • Differentiality

      Differentiality is the property of a set or a field of points to have an univocal link to a set of defined values or coordinates. That means the relation between the points can be expressed in terms of the variation of those coordinates which can be called the independent variables. For example, in a scientific experiment, the conditions or the settings of the detector which have been used for the repeated measurements are such coordinates. Changing those coordinates will produce a different outputs.

      This property of data is central for scientific research as it allows to reformulate the behaviour of the phenomenon implicit in the data in terms of well defined rules. Mathematical equations in physics could be regarded as such rules, expressing in that specific language how a certain behaviour presents itself. On the basis of differentiality, these formulations integrate fields of differences into complete images: they stabilise fragmentary variations and construct a whole.

      Transpositions are differential.

      Transpositions resist integration.

      The conditions under which transpositions come to be and are performed are unclear. Processes leading to a transposition might be traceable in terms of the operations which have been performed on the object. This tracing however, will not make justice of the complexity of the aesthetic decisions and which have led to them. Further, these conditions might vary drastically from one transposition of the same object to another: transpositions are incomparable.

      Transpositions indicate difference positions, they are inherently differential. But, there is no defined common basis, such as a comparable set of numbers or coordinates which might link one transposition to another or to its original material.

      Transpositions resist integration in the sense that they cannot be brought into an univocal relationship with the conditions which generated them cannot be entirely known. They resist stabilisation into a finite propositional formulation. Relations and differences towards each other and with the object they are applied to remain incompressible, they continue to be a network of differential interacting positions.

    • Facta

      Looking closer at the nature of data, at its properties, one realises that there is more complexity to it. First, data exists only in relation and interaction with the experiment which has been performed, to the research questions, the particular measuring devices which have been used as well as the analysis methods which are then applied onto it. From this perspective, data is less a stable result and becomes more a complex compound of all these factors which cannot be separated from it.

      In a way, data is not simply "given". There is an apparatus, for example a particle detector at CERN, which actually produces a data set by performing a great number of operations which are transformative of the input phenomenon. Further, all these operations of data "taking" are infused by the researchers' knowledge and expectations and thus are a generative factor of the data itself. Data might as well have a double nature of "facta", done, produced and emergent from the interaction of all the technological and theoretical tools scientist have with what they observe.

      One of the results of the TP project, was to understand that transposing a data set means to recognise and acknowledge the its complexity. It means to recover its context and the net of interactions in it. The transposed becomes less a static moulding material on which transposing operations are applied and more a produced phenomenon which is active due to the interactions it emerges from and which it affords.

    • Network

      Trying to find a perceptible visual form of this complex space we searched for an operation which could transform this high-dimensional structure into a two dimensional figure, without loss of detail. To this end, we devised another dynamical system, which would accomplish this specific task in an recursive computation. This system is formed by 81 mutually interacting masses placed on a plane, one for each neuron. The system consists of 81 mutually interaction masses on a plane, one for each neuron. The magnitude of the force each mass pair is subject to reflects the correlation value that neuron pair has: highly correlated neurons would result in very close positions, while uncorrelated ones would remain as far from each other as possible. A set of correlation values of the neural network activity would cause simultaneously all of the masses to move and search positions whose relative distances to all other masses corresponds to that node's relationship to all other nodes. Similarity and interdependence are transposed into geometrical distance relationships. Eventually the dynamical system will result in an arrangement of the masses which reflects the best possible two dimensional approximation of the multi-dimensional structure, constructing a figure which folds and unfolds in time.

      The resulting visual form is a transposition. It is in many ways a collision, between the data set and the expectations scientists have towards it, my artistic practice in employing dynamical systems, and the artistic choices guiding fine tuning of the drawing just to name a few. And it is a complexification: we are dealing not with two interacting and inextricably interwoven dynamical systems whose responsibilities in the visual result cannot be exactly separated. The transposition doesn't extract quantifiable information from what it is applied to: it doesn't either present a "solution" as it doesn't search for causes. Rather, a transposition brings to light specific qualities of the transposed which are inherently incalculable. And finally, it is a compound formed or even produced by the interaction, the collision of all these aspects. It might stand as a self-contained artistic artefact, but its transpositional potential lies in the affordance of interactions with other artefacts, concepts, contexts, etc.

      Using this tools we realised different transpostions of the neural simulation data: we developed multiple parametrisations for the dynamical system and the figure's visual rendering. The result is a field of figures, artefacts whose mutual relationships constructs itself a network.

    • Resonances

      What kind of object is this then? It is an condensation of multiple practices. An artistic artefact. A scientific material. A

      It is all of these but none of these exclusively

      It is an oscillation between a scientific contexts and an artistic staging. An indefinite position whose

    • Recursion

      The concept of recursion seems a theme running in background of some thoughts I'm trying to depict here: it might be apt for clarifying some ideas.

      In computing, recursion describes the situation where one of the steps of an algorithms consists of a new invocation of the same algorithm. For example, the simulation of the dynamical system we used to generate the visual representation of the correlations of the neural network, is a recursive function. In general, dynamical systems may be considered recursive algorithms: they consist of the recursive application of the evolution rules to a state, the result being the input for the calculation of the next step. Recursion is the algorithmic formalisation of a process that evolves trough time.

      Transpositions are recursive

      Having unclear positions, transpositions afford a non static perception: their connections towards other positions, including their origin, are continuously reconstructed in a oscillatory movement, a triangulation involving all elements in their network.

      Transpositions are compounds of interacting elements: artistic and scientific practices, visual or aural forms, the theoretical embedding of the original material as well as its artistic historical and social context. This elements are enclosed in the artefact and are generative of it perceptual construction. Their recursive interaction is the generative function of the transposition.

    • Interference

      I will try now to draw a pattern of interference as it appears to me from the diffraction of the different ideas collected in this text. This part is less thought to present a final definition of transposition, more an attempt to make a picture, maybe partial, of the interactions between those ideas as they emerged while writing and autithinking about transpositions.

      Transpositions are compounds of undefined state which are generated by collisions between complex objects. In the case of the TP project these objects could be understood as data as phenomenon and the artistic practices of the project's researchers. These objects bring with themselves a whole context of complex interrelations in which they appear: i.e. data is not only a collection of numbers which is given to the researchers in order to be analysed, it is also tightly bound to the whole context in which it is generated. These collisions result in a complexification. i.e. the object arising from the collision is more then just the sum of the two, it is an inextricable compound of interacting parts which are modified in the process. This transposition appears as an aesthetic object a work of art.

      To perform a transposition means to acknowledge the complexity of the interrelations in which the two colliding objects are in as well as placing the transposition in a context of other objects, possibly other transpositions, with which it is related. A transposition relates to others, with connections not only towards other artefacts of the same form, but also other forms of formulations.

      As a transposition has unclear state, it can be perceived just through the relations it constructs in an operation of triangulation based on the differences towards other objects, its behaviour inside this network of relations. The staging and showing of a transposition in this context induces interactions between all the objects in the network, eventually changing, restructuring it and possibly generating new interactions.

      A transposition is therefore active, it oscillates and elicits interactions and the emerging behaviour of how relationships undergo variation is a trace of the complexity of the network. As transpositions resist integration this behaviour remains and aesthetic quality, unformulated.

      As the whole context in and outside a transposition is changed in the moment of its placing, also the relationships to it change. The process of producing, staging, presenting a transposition as a work with its interconnections, modifies it. A transposition, while being a work of art, is not under complete control of the artists who produced it, in the sense that it offers an openness to be seen, perceived or thought in different ways as it was thought.

    • Notes

      The space which is left or created in between the tranpositions, which has to be bridged or interpolated contains the productive potential of reinterpretation and perspective generation

      Truth!?

      transpositions as container of ideas , as generator of possibilities, -> needs to be complexified or either emptied

      a "succefull" transposition is one that allows to rethink the past and image the unknown as well as estabilishing a clear step "aside" similar trapositions (on the same level of understanding)

      In this sense a transposition generates space, a spece "between" two transpositions

      non linearity aesthetic thinking in the text -> translate into a text which is an aesthetic experience rather than apropositionalin presenting multiple statements which lie in contrast or overlap withe each other

      talk about the statements

      it is not closed

      Loosing control over expectetions as interactions modify the compound itslef Therefor a transposition is also an opening

      keeping the net an aesthetic object

      non hyerarchical thinking cause and effect

      a transposition does something it's active

      Control

      Net of relationships -> operation of triangulation generates compounds

      To perform a transposition means to acknowledge the complexity of the phenomenon which is transposed

      A transposition is a compound and as such it stands as a objcte of its own. In a sense it resists differential operations

      A transposition is a compound entangling the what is examined together with the artistic practice whit which it is collided with.

      Transpositions relate to each other

      Transpositions resist differentiality

      Generating transpositions means to collided a phenomenon (as data might be) with various instances of artistic practice. The generated transpositions are compounds. As the initial conditions vary for each transposition they cannot be regarded as differential, the field of variations is not differential.

      Still transpositions relate to each other and interact, so still generating behaviour.

      Transpositions are complexifications

      But dilating the space (or time) between the markings of cause and effect.

      behaviour identifies behaviour is how a thing changes it is the way how it changes, reacts behaviour is difference from one point to the other behaviour is the underlying coherency which can account for the whole difference filed a transpositon is a position which exists in relation to another the relation is the difference transposition elicits difference transposition probes behaviour difference is aesthetically salient difference is perceptible which is the object? data is facta data is produced data is elicited by acting upon something the action produces differences or a field of differences

      data

  • “. . . a new machine now arises” Algorithms and Reconfiguration, Hanns Holger Rutz

    A configuration is an arrangement, a set of—possibly heterogeneous—elements along with their positions or relations with respect to each other. This article looks at specific configurations in digital sound works. As opposed to the system term that stresses aspects of design and function, suggesting technological determination, a configuration focuses instead on the productive potential of the representations that its elements both entail and operate on. We study the transpositional operation as an act, deliberate or collateral, of reconfiguration, i.e. the modification of a configuration through the introduction of a new element or relation or a shift in positions. Our focus is on algorithmic practices, where pieces of code assume the production of forms and establish mutual writing processes between human and computer. Going beyond the traditional view of algorithms as a tight interlocking of logic and control structures, algorithms involve speculative computations, the production of materials that are yet “continually unrealized” (Parisi). Despite having manifest digital artefacts at our disposal, the nature of the configuration process is intrinsically difficult to observe. One useful method is the foregrounding of representations as “orienting agents” (Hamman). Each digital sound model, each textual or visual interface and each set of language symbols used to implement an algorithm permit specific ways of orienting elements towards another and bring about aesthetic and epistemic consequences. A powerful example is the operational closure inherent to most of these models and languages, their possibility of random and unbounded catenation and thus experimentation. Even seemingly “flat” representations such as a sampled sound waveform may play an important role for reconfiguration, as they permit structural coupling of second-order representations that would otherwise be confined to incompatible spaces.

  • Lomax

    1 Without Remainder or Residue: Example, Making Use, Transposition Yve Lomax Royal College of Art, London It happened as an epiphany. A transposition—in fact, more than one—had taken place and with it came an exposure of the functioning and control of a power that constitutes itself by separating something from it. And it begins with me being beckoned to see and think the peculiar existence of the example . . . I I’m at the threshold of a doorway between two rooms. I move from the threshold and enter one of the rooms. This much I can tell you: the place is abandoned. But wait, it is not empty at all. Just inside the doorway there is a small pile of sawdust and over there a shaft of sunlight is pouring in from a window, holding dancing particles of dust in its beam and illuminating a flattened cardboard box, which is a show of the geometrics of its construction. And look over there, almost in the corner of the room—it’s a photograph that has been pinned carefully to the wall besides which an arc has been drawn (soft pencil mark) that extends from floor to ceiling. Let’s say the room is thick with details. For sure, these details could be easily left to their individual or collective abandonment but, at this very moment, I’m being asked to consider these things as paradigmatic cases; that’s to say, as examples. At this point, everything in that room remains just as it is yet a little different. The Greek word paradeigma means “that which shows itself beside” and this is precisely what an example does: the example is found in a para-position. And in that abandoned yet not empty room where the sight of examples makes everything a little different yet exactly the same, it is this very position that is (again) demanding my attention. What needs to be said straightway is that every example, no matter what, has to stand as a real particular case. There is no play of absence and presence, no question of representation: for every example has to generate and show that of which it is an example. Here it is—here is an example of sunlight. In the room of examples in which I am standing, the movement asked of me is to go from the particular to the particular, and this is precisely the movement that Aristotle gestures in the few words that he wrote on the example: “the paradigm2 [example] does not function as a part with respect to the whole, nor as a whole with respect to the part, but as a part with respect to the part” (Aristotle, Prior Analytics 69a13–15, quoted in Agamben 2009, 19). Every example is a real particular case and it could not stand as an example if this were not so, yet no one example is the only possible example. There are always other examples, which means a real particular case has to hold for all other possible examples. Indeed, to be an example, a particular case has to stand for all other cases of the same type and, hence, can’t stand as this particular existence. Given as an example, sunlight is not sunlight but it is nothing other than sunlight—it is sunlight, as it were, besides (para) itself. An example shows a particular case but it can’t serve in its particularity; it is through the suspension of this “immediate factual reference,” this particular existence, that the example can serve for all, of which—and this is crucial—it is also to be included as a particular and singular case. At this moment, things become paradoxical, in particular the distinction between the particular and the universal. “The example stretches the distinction between the universal and the particular, the general and the individual; it is, characteristically, neither one nor the other. And what is also characteristic of the example is that it exhibit that of which it is exemplary. The example makes an exposition” (Lomax 2010, 88). As I go from the particular to the particular, I see the example giving an example of transposition; however, consequences emerge as it becomes undeniable that the example abandons the dichotomy between the particular and the general that has for so long—too long—dominated Western logic. In the room in which I’m standing a shaft of sunlight still pours through the window, holding particles of dust in its beam. I walk through this beam and across the floor to inspect that photograph pinned carefully to the wall. Here is an exposition. Here an example showing. I look hard. I look long. And what doesn’t come with this looking is a general photograph. However, a question comes and I can’t ignore it. —What has generality (the general image, the general artist, art in general) done for us? Stay with the question long enough and what comes to be called into question is the (dichotomous) logic that would have language always speaking in generalities. Here is the dominant story and I say it without sophistication: it is through the general rule 3 and the universal applicable to all cases that the world becomes intelligible and we can speak of it, for the particular case in its singularity is ineffable. It is here that the logic of a dichotomy forces a choice: either the ineffability of the singular and the particular or the intelligibility of the universal and the general. However, with the example there simply is no such choice; the relation of particular to universal is changed. The example is neither particular nor universal and Giorgio Agamben (1993, 9) would have us find this existence in language and upsetting the dichotomy that has had us choosing between ineffability and intelligibility. He calls it “linguistic being” and it is all to do with the name, with “being called.” The name “tree” serves to designate a particular case, a singular tree—this tree, that tree, a tree—at the same time as it names the class or set to which all trees belong. The so-called “tree” is an example. To act as an example, a particular case has to deactivate its immediate and empirical existence—this existence. It is by virtue of this very deactivation that the example can make an exposition of—generate and define—that of which it is an example. Through deactivation, the example stands beside this existence, this sunlight pouring through the window, and it is there, in that para-position, that it makes both the singular case and indeed the group or class to which it belongs knowable and intelligible—this is what sunlight can be. An example has to be a real particular case yet each time this particular case deactivates itself in order to generate, produce, and show that of which it an example. At that moment, the example becomes the exemplar of a general rule or norm. Yet each time it is a matter of this singular case making an exposition. Hence, the intelligibility that comes each time knows no pre-existing general or universal rule. The example goes from the particular to the particular and in this movement gives an example of transpositions, but what is crucial, for the example and the transpositions taking place with it, is that a general rule, norm, or universal is profoundly inapplicable. The movement “across and through” never leaves the singular as we go from one particular to another; and what the example or paradigm does, through the singular exposition it makes, is to transform every singularity and every particularity into an exemplar of a general rule, but this rule or generality simply can’t be stated beforehand. It can’t be presupposed. It is not already in place waiting to be applied.4 As we move from the particular to the particular there is a move from one position to another; however, things are not that simple: because the example cannot serve in its particularity means that, with all those other possible examples for which it stands, not only is a “community” formed where part and whole, particular and general, cease to coincide with themselves but also trans-positions take place that radically call into question the very idea of having a place or position. At this point, the example and the transpositional become consequentially political. To be called an example, which anyone or anything can be, is to assume a position that is essentially vicarious. Indeed, to live the life of an example means that at any time another can be substituted for you, as you are yourself a substitute for another. As an example, “your place is going towards and opening into all those other possible examples, each of which knows no place of its own and is immediately cast into another’s” (Lomax 2010, 94). It is nothing other than transposition that takes place as one example opens onto the “community” of all those other possible examples; yet the example occupies a place that is profoundly in question, and it is here that the full affect and radicality of transposition can be felt. Trans-position: not at all the taking up of place, not at all the setting down of a foot; rather, a movement that goes across and passes through. Trans. And here a world of places, positions, and substantives-to-be-known is abandoned for a world that is encountered only in its coming-into-being-known: The example doesn’t show the phenomenon of which it is an example established once and for all; rather, it shows it in its coming-into-being-known. The example shows the phenomenon being-such; it shows us the phenomenon as what it can be. And what this can does is to expose the phenomenon to its possibilities—this example is one of its possibilities. But there is more. Through its life of substitution, this possible example is opening into all those other possible examples for which, at any time, it can be replaced, which means that the phenomenon is being exposed to all its possibilities. And it must be said that with all these possibilities there is no one that is definitive. Indeed, no one example of what a tree can be is definitive of the identity of a tree. (Lomax 2010, 94) With the example of sunlight that is before me, the very thing of sunlight is “beside itself” touching all its possibilities, and what is crucial is that not one of these 5 possibilities is fixed and final and exhaustive of it. Can is characteristic of the example: the example shows the world not established once and for all but, rather, amid its potentia. This is what the world can be. This is what sunlight can be This is what a photograph can be. This needs repeating: with the example there is no archetype, arche, or beginning that stands in the past as already having happened and as such can be presupposed. No pre-existing general rule, no universal that can be taken as given: each example—each transposition—is a moment of arising and as such constitutes an arche or beginning. And this has consequences for that photograph pinned so carefully to the wall, which for what seems an aeon I have not taken my eyes off. What does it mean to apprehend a photograph as an example? In a previous work I took the question seriously. On a single page I reproduced a photographic image accompanied by the single word Example; it constituted a whole chapter in itself, and fifty-odd pages later, as an annotation, the following can be read: For this photographic image to be held up as an example, I first have to say—This is an example. With that being said I am saying that this photographic image shows you what a photographic image can be; it is, as such, a potentia, in itself a possibility that opens onto all those other possibilities, no one of which is definitive. Having said this, there comes yet another thought: What if the photographic image was to be considered as existing in the paradigmatic position of the example? Here the photographic image would be showing the world beside itself; the photographic image would not be it, yet the photographic image would be nothing other than it. As an example, the photographic image would give a view, yet this view—this image—would not be bound by something that is already established. It would not be a representation. For with the example there is no play of absence and presence. But there is exposition, and this shows not what the world “has been” but, rather, what the world can be. (Lomax 2010,

    As an example, each photographic image is itself a moment of arising and, as such, constitutes an arche or beginning. In short, the past ceases to be found in the past. In a sense, what comes is that which has never happened.6 Agamben (2009, 28) puts this beautifully as he asks us to consider a plate from Aby Warburg’s atlas of images called Mnemosyne. This plate is made up of twenty- seven images and the name “Nymph” (as Pathosformel) is given to the whole. But I would be mistaken to take this as iconographic repertory that allows us to return to an archetype or original from which they all come to exist. The images are wholly diverse. Here a photograph of a peasant women taken by Warburg; there a figure from a fresco. Simply put, each image is a paradigm—an example. Again: there is no archetype or original that has already happened and what every image called “Nymph” presupposes. Agamben (2009, 29): “Every photograph is the original; every image constitutes the archē and is, in this sense, ‘archaic.’” As we move across the twenty-seven individual images that make up the plate there comes an elucidation of transposition: something is carried across and shows itself in various appearances, yet this something can never be isolated as the pure phenomenon and, what’s more, isn’t a matter of a sensible likeness. At this moment, at least for me, “transposition” and “example” show the abandonment of a world of places, positions, and substantives-to-be-known for a world that is encountered without recourse to a separate realm and is, moreover, known without presupposition, remainder, or residue. A small pile of sawdust; a shaft of sunlight pouring in from a window holding dancing particles of dust in its beam; a flattened cardboard box exposing the geometrics of its construction; a photograph pinned carefully to a wall; an arc scratched from floor to ceiling: here are sensible objects, concrete phenomena and empirical situations, yet my attention is beckoned to apprehend examples and paradigms and see moments of arising. And as I go to and from each particular example, I experience an intimate and radical connection between transposition and examples, which brings a movement away from considering any of these examples as substantives (the stuff of nouns) taking up a place or fixed position in the world. And here comes what I can only call an ontological shift: everything is as it is but the being of the world and the knowing of the world has profoundly changed. But there is more and this is where “research” enters: each concrete phenomenon is open to a paradigmatic use to make something, which could be an idea, a function, or concrete design, knowable and intelligible, and—who knows— problematical. 7 Call it a paradigmatic method. Through the acknowledgement (I could also say, appreciation) of examples, the paradigmatic method seeks to make “whatever” knowable and intelligible. We use examples to show things and explain things; for example, weaving as a paradigm for “the art of governing people or operating the State apparatus” (Deleuze and Guattari [1987] 1988, 475). And sometimes we can only arrive at an understanding or comprehension of the “object” of a theoretical or historical investigation by constructing paradigms, examples. In using or constructing paradigms, the paradigmatic method comes to a “whatever” without the presupposition of, the acceptance and application of, a pre- existing general rule. This something could be the functioning of a “society of control” made knowable through a singular example (smartphones), which, as paradigmatic, opens onto a broader context and all those other possible examples. The paradigmatic method doesn’t take as given that which it seeks to make knowable, which is often the case with a hypothesis, which in Greek means “presupposition.” Hypotithemi—“I lay down as a base.” Let’s say a hypothesis is put on the table. The hypothesis has an idea and an investigation is to be undertaken, which intends that the hypothesis will give an explanation. The investigation starts with the hypothesis’s explanation, but it is here that it makes a presupposition; for, the explanation posits its own idea as a given reality. What is forgotten is that what appears as given is in reality only a presupposition of the explanation hypothesis that would explain it. In the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, immediately prior to the allegory of the cave, a passage addresses presupposition and speaks of treating the hypothesis as truly a hypothesis. In “What is a Paradigm,” Agamben speaks of Plato wanting us to treat a hypothesis not as a basis (presupposition) but rather as “stepping stones to take off from, enabling it to reach the unhypothetical [anypotheton] first principle of everything” (Plato, Republic 6.511b, quoted in Agamben 2009, 25). The passage has been considered obscure and difficult, but Agamben asserts that to treat the hypothesis truly as a hypothesis may simply mean to treat it as a paradigm: the difficult passage in Plato becomes clearer if we read it as an exposition of the paradigmatic method.8 The paradigmatic method makes intelligible without taking “whatever” as already given, as already set down, in place and occupying a position; indeed, it is about reaching, in the words of Plato, the anypotheton. Be it called scientific, philosophical, or artistic, is this not what lies at the heart of research, its fundamental gesture, as it were? I’ll say it as simply as I can: artistic research can make an exposition of that which is reached without presupposition. That is to say, it can use a paradigm or construct an example to make a moment of arising that situates knowability and opens out intelligibility, even if for the (dominant) order of things the “epistemic status” remains unclear. At this moment in artistic research, the particularity before me can never be fully separated from exemplarity. Transposition is most certainly in operation, but that which is to be “knowable” as continuous across a series of phenomena is shown and embraced as a paradigmatic case. For one more time I look at those concrete phenomenon as examples: a small pile of sawdust; a shaft of sunlight pouring in from a window holding dancing particles of dust in its beam; a flattened cardboard box exposing the geometrics of its construction; a photograph pinned carefully to the wall; an arc drawn from floor to ceiling. And what I see is a room quivering with beginnings and arisings and there is nothing stopping these beginnings from coming into contact with one another and making time become—I have no other words for it—musical. In this room, everything is as it is yet everything is changed: a world of places, positions and substantives-to-be-known has been abandoned for a world that is encountered without recourse to a separate realm. What is key with the example—as it were, its ontological gesture—is that in taking place no substantive place is assumed and, moreover, nothing remains external to or separate from it. There is no residue, no remainder; nothing preceding is left behind. II I turn around to cross into the room beside the one in which I’m standing and, apprehending nothing other than examples (including the room itself), no sooner than I’m at the threshold there comes a flurry of questions . . . Doesn’t the very idea of transposition bring possibilities other than the rigid inscription of things in particular spheres, and are not such possibilities something— whatever—that is capable of showing itself across and within a series of appearance but that can never be isolated? For sure, the transpositionality that the example has made 9 intelligible has shown me this, yet there comes the question of these appearances raising the matter of use; that’s to say, the possibility that, through transposition, “whatever” is “making free use of itself.” I cross a threshold and “making use” is making itself h eard. If transposition brings the possibility of something showing itself across a series of appearance, then is not each appearance, as a “free making use,” the arising of a new use? A new use? A new use most certainly speaks of potentiality not becoming exhausted with transposition, but there is more: each possibility that is other than the rigid inscription of things in a particular sphere and which is a “free making use” brings a use that doesn’t “serve for,” which augurs instrumentality and, bluntly put, ties use to utility. A new use: a non-instrumental, non-utilitarian use. The example has made transposition intelligible to me, and now, as I myself make a transposition and cross a threshold and enter that other space, what is heard is a new use. And I hear it as nothing other than a call: a call for a use with which instrumental and utilitarian use is as not. A new use: instrumental and utilitarian use as not. As not. “. . . the earth ceasing to be transformed into a ‘standing reserve’ that is material to be ordered, exploited and used up” (Heidegger 1993, 322). “. . . those buying as not possessing, and those using the world as not using it up” (1 Cor. 7:30–31, quoted in Agamben 2005, 23, emphasis added). Let’s say I’ve entered a space of new use, which is precisely a place where “to use” or “make use” brings a use that is untied from prescribed or compulsory or rigidly inscribed ends or particular spheres; and what needs to be added is that in this place there is nothing that is a possession to be owned. Indeed, what is consequential with this new use is: with that which makes use of itself (and here “self” is not to be confused with or presupposed or substantiated as a subject) or makes use of things in the world there comes a “relation to an inappropriable” (Agamben 2016, 81). Use is made, but there is no appropriating. No taking as one’s own. No ownership—possessing is as not.10 So, I’ve not crossed a threshold and entered a place that is littered with objects to be possessed or owned. No, I am not standing in the field of property. But what is happening is that the “use” transpositionality is making heard is calling for relations with the world (or the self) “insofar as it is inappropriable” (Agamben 2013, 144). At this moment, use and inappropriability are immediately in contact with each other, but there is more: this contact recalls an older sense of “to make use of” that, for example, can be found with the Greek verb chresthai. This verb bears no relation to the modern-day meaning of the verb to use, “to make use of: to utilise something.” For that meaning, the world comprises separated subjects (users) and objects (what is used); but not so with chresthai, which is a verb that draws its meaning from the term that follows it—make use of language. “The process does not pass from an active subject toward the object separated from his action but involves in itself the subject, to the same degree that this latter is implied in the object and ‘gives himself’ to it” (Agamben 2016, 28). Simply put, the subject and object are never separable. Chresthai is an example that shows “use” and “to use” as bringing a relational unity—a bond—between the object used and the subject using it. With the utilitarian relations that have come to dominate the earth, it goes almost without question that in using something you’re someone independent of the object (which could well be language, some bright sparkling concept, or a musical refrain) that is going to be put to use. It goes something like this: in making use of something, the process starts from someone going out toward something separate that is to be appropriated, grasped, grabbed, or even caressed and with which an action is performed, resulting in an accomplishment, which of course might not happen. But the situation is quite different with the older and unified sense of “to use,” where the subject is not separate at all. There simply is no prior subject, no independent agent, for “to use” never starts with nor rests upon a subject or agent that is already constituted. Putting something—whatever—to use you are found only in the middle of a process and, moreover, your very existence is affected by it. Not a subject that uses an object but rather a subject that constitutes itself only through the using. Example: speaking makes use of language. Language is put to use and an action manifests—I speak. And this very action can only take place through the use; what is more, I am, as a speaking subject, only constituted through the using. It is an interdependent relation and, with it, use and inappropriability are truly tied to each 11 other: making use of things is never to take as one’s own, and that also goes for the subject that constitutes itself through use. “To use” is to enter into a relation with something: “I must be affected by it, constitute myself as one who makes use of it. Human being and world are, in use, in a relationship of absolute and reciprocal immanence; in the using of something, it is the very being of the one using that is first of all at stake” (Agamben 2016, 30). A new use recalls an older and unified sense of use, with which subjects and objects are “deactivated and rendered inoperative.” And there follows, in their place, “use as a new figure of human praxis” (ibid.).

    *

    *

    * I have crossed into a space of use and in this place transposition shows and demonstrates a use that is immediately in contact with inappropriability and, at bottom, a radical deactivation of subject and object relations, instrumental and utilitarian use. And what of artistic research? This much I can say, for transposition to be “in use,” better still, that transposition is enabled to be “in use”—that a mathematical phenomenon or philosophical creation can appear within an artistic endeavour—would be an instance of such deactivation. And let’s understand that this deactivation means not only the one using does not, in using, go unaffected (his or her being is at stake) but also that a space opens up that is nothing other than “a place of pure praxis” (Agamben 2005, 28). And the reason for “pure” is simply that this space and practice of use, this new use that is an old figure of use, has nothing separable—as subject, agent, or object—from it. For the relational unity that takes place between what is being used and who or what is using it are never wholly separable—there is no recourse to a separate (prior) realm. I’ve crossed a threshold and gone from one space to another. I have spoken of rooms, but the space I’m in now is bigger and more open than any room I’ve ever known. In this space (should I call it a landscape?) using is taking place as not using up, subject and object have become deactivated along with instrumental and utilitarian use, and nothing prior is left behind in a separate realm. With the example, the universal and the particular are changed and with the making use that is a new use recalling an older unified sense of use, so are subject and object relations, and now I have become acutely12 aware that there is something going on that is transposable between the taking place of the example and the taking place of making use. The example has made transposition intelligible to me and this intelligibility— this transposition—has brought me, through possibilities other than rigid inscription of things in particular spheres, to a making use that, in taking place, has nothing separated from it and, moreover, bares no resemblance to that practice where an architectural feature or design is transposed, perhaps brick by brick, to another place. Here it is: what is transposable between the example and making use is not a substantive; it is, rather, a taking place that takes place without remainder or residue— nothing preceding is found or left behind in a separate realm or, for whatever reasons, excepted or excluded. And taking this further, let’s say that the transposition that can take place between example and making use is that of a mode of being that is not founded upon an act of separation, exclusion, or exception. It is at this point that the epiphany comes: the transposition that can take place between example and making use shows me—better still, exposes—that which found itself by purposely separating and excluding something from it. Yes, what is exposed is an act of separation that comes to function as foundation, origin, or ground—call it a constitutive exclusion. And what is revealed is a contrivance, a set-up, a mechanism of control, which some would call a monstrous piece of magic. Here it is: that which constitutes itself through an act of separation and exclusion has the separated or excluded become its origin and foundation and, through this, has it included. And the effect is precisely that of having the separated or excluded or excepted become captured in the form of its exclusion. Giorgio Agamben (2016, 264) most certainly sees this strategy operating within the governmental machine of Western politics/power and, what’s more, he sees it as the apex of Western metaphysics (ontology). “The strategy,” he says, “is always the same: something is divided, excluded, and pushed to the bottom, and precisely through this exclusion, is included as archè and foundation.” Look at how governmental power founds itself and controls by separating something from itself. Look at how the first act of government, which happens every day, hour, and minute, separates being (what will be called bare life, naked life, mere being, biological being) from the purely practical activity of its management, administration, and government. 13 And look for as long as you can at the ungoverned—“anarchy”—being produced in the first cut of government, which is a government’s first act, by which it founds itself upon something separated, constituting a beginning that is not in the past but today is ever present. The ungoverned called anarchy is placed at the origin and over and over again the governmental machine functions and originates itself through this inclusion of the excluded. At this moment, anarchy—whatever has been excluded—is captured in the form of its exclusion, and why the operation is truly a work of dark magic is that it is not and never will be a matter of having anarchy (or being or whatever) turn against this very capture. Any act of doing so leads power, the governmental machine, to function ever more so—what returns is the anarchy internal to governmental power itself. Agamben (2016, 275): “Because power is constituted through the inclusive exclusion (ex-ceptio) of anarchy, the only possibility of thinking a true anarchy coincides with the lucid exposition of the anarchy internal to power.” The example has shown me what “transposition” can be, and through the very idea and movement of something—whatever—showing itself across a series of appearance from which it is never isolatable there has come the possibilities of a “making free use” that is a new (non-instrumental and non-utilitarian use) use. So, the example brings a transposition that brings the matter of use (a new figure for human praxis), and what is transposable from example to making use is a taking place without remainder or residue. And this has shown me a beautiful non-activation of—better still, simply as not—the working of a power and control that begins with an act of separation constituting a foundation that is, at the very same time, a capture of the excluded. But there is something else: the transpositions that have appeared show me “transposition” as always a matter of this mode. My heart begins to beat a little faster: as I cross a threshold and find myself in a space that is not a property littered with objects and things to be owned and possessed, I become aware that transposition is demanding me to think nothing other than modality; in fact, nothing short of a modal ontology. Rather than an ontology of substance where we would identify something that is always below and separable from its modes or modifications, what is asking for attention—if not love—is a modal ontology with which being or substance or a substantive or whatever is nothing other than its mode, its “as,” its “thus.”14 And this is where the music begins: One of the fundamental meanings of “mode” is in fact the musical one of rhythm. . . . Benveniste has show that “rhythm” (rhythmos) is a technical term of pre-Socratic philosophy that designates form, not in its fixity (for this, Greek prefers to use the term schema) but in the moment in which it is assumed by what is moving, what is mobile and fluid. . . . Mode expresses this “rhythmic” and not “schematic” nature of being: being is a flux, and substance “modulates” itself and beats out its rhythm—it does not fix and schematize itself—in the modes. (Agamben 2016, 172–73) At last I can say this: No matter the possessive pronoun, “my” life is not an object of ownership; it is not my possession and nor is it anybody else’s. Life, my life, is an example constituted only in use, which is to say that there is no life that can be separated from its form of life, its modes of being; indeed, being is not a substance that precedes the modes or forms that are expressions of the possibilities of being—the world turns and returns without anything being placed in a separate realm. For the transposition of musical notes from one key to another, what matters is music—life—as this mode, as thus. References Agamben, Giorgio. 1993. The Coming Community. Translated by Michael Hardt. Theory Out of Bounds 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. First published 1990 as La comunità che viene (Turin: Einaudi). ———. 2005. The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Translated by Patricia Dailey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2000 as Il tempo che resta: Una commento alla Lettera di Romani (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri). ———. 2009. The Signature of All Things: On Method. Translated by Luca D’Isanto with Kevin Attell. New York: Zone Books. First published 2008 as Signatura rerum: Sul metodo (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri). ———. 2013. The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2011 as Altissima povertà: Regole monastiche e forma di vita (Vicenza: N. Pozza). 15 ———. 2016. The Use of Bodies. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2014 as L’uso dei corpi (Vicenza: N. Pozza). Deleuze, Giles, and Félix Guattari. (1987) 1988. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Athlone Press. First published 1980 as Mille plateaux (Paris: Éditions de Minuit). This translation first published 1987 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Heidegger, Martin. 1993. “The Question Concerning Technology.” Translated by William Lovitt. In Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964), edited by David Farrell Krell, rev. and expanded ed., xx–xx. San Francisco: Harper. Essay first published 1954 as “Die Frage nach der Technik,” in Vorträge und Aufsätze (Pfullingen: G. Neske), 13–44. Lomax, Yve. 2010. Passionate Being: Language, Singularity and Perseverance. London: I. B. Tauris.

  • Discussions
    • Michael

      It seems that there is no coherent definition of the term ‘transposition’ - the concept is used in diverse contexts ranging from mathematics to genetics to music, always with slightly different meanings or connotations. ‘Transposition’ may thus indicate a simple displacement of information – moving something from this location to that location – or it may be an operation on a whole set of information equally affecting all members. I wonder, if we recruit the notion of ‘transposition’ as one possible operator in the field of artistic research, do we find what we seek in already existing definitions, or are we, in fact, complicating the term to fit our own interests and practices?

    • Gerhard

      I want to start our discussion with my current attempt to define transposition: Transposition transforms an object together with its relationships to the context it inhabits. This operation can change an object only insofar as its relationships to the context allow. It also modifies the context to the extent possible by the ways the object is entangled with it. Thinking transformation in terms of transposition acknowledges the fluidity and interdependance of objects and contexts, in contrast to other trans-operations, such as transportation, transcription, translation, or transmutation.

    • David

      And here is my current attempt:

      A transposition etymologically indicates a position which lies aside of another and thus exists only in relation to others: it has unclear coordinates. A transposition might be defined through the relations and interactions it has with other transpositions in a sort of continuous triangulation operation. Performing a transposition on something means therefore to put it in an undefined state which, as the final point is not known, cannot be thought of as a simple displacement. Instead it seems to be more the result of a process of complexification of the object, as something is added to it, a quality that changes it.

      As Michael points out, there seems to be no coherent common denominator of its definition throughout the various disciplines, so there is not much to rely on, which is both a problem and a chance. I agree, trying to define it for me, I attempted to fit my own interest, practices and backgrounds and the result is therefore (more) complex: maybe a transposition in itself. I am interested to see how it interacts with others.

    • Michael

      I think it’s probably fair to suggest that (artistic) research projects often build on existing concepts while stretching – or even transposing – them to fit their concerns. In doing this, concepts become plastic. For instance, our sister project for this publication, ‘MusicExperiment 21’ represented by Paulo de Assis, who is also the PI, Lucia D’Errico and myself, displays a similar dynamics around the notion of ‘experimentation.’ We take it from the history and theory of science as well as philosophy and define it quite specifically in the context of our research as replacing modes of interpretation in performance practice. In hindsight, though, in both cases, what we though the founding concepts were – transposition or experimentation, respectively – have turned out to be so shifting that a stable footing was never quite achieved. In some sense, the future proved much more stabilizing than the past.

      However, I do think that ‘transposition’ is not just a notion to depart from; it is also a concept with a very narrow operative scope that promises to help finding a language for key process in contemporary art and artistic research, in particular. Ever since I started to conceive of my practice as ‘artistic research’ I have been seeking handles to get deeper into its substructure.

      But, David, why do you think that the transposed state is also an undefined state? You said it yourself, even if it is not absolutely defined, it is still relatively defined, or do you think that a transposition is also a departure from that relations from which it emerges?

    • David

      When a transposition is performed its genesis is conditioned by the relations the objects bears in itself (which would be scientific data sets in the case of the TP project) as well as the relations inherent in the practice of the artist performing the transposition. For example on one side, data is not only a set of numbers, it also strongly relates with the scientific process it arises from (or even generates it), the experimental detector, its functioning and technical characteristics, as well as with the hypothesis or theories which led the scientist to gather that particular data with that particular detector. On the other side, my practice cannot only be defined as sound and or video art: it correlates strongly with my personal history, my previous education and my past works.

      When a transposition is performed, a work is generated which already is a complex net of relationships which comprises other works as well, other transpositions with which it is indissolubly entangled into. And, when it is placed into this space of relations or interactions it actively redefines the geometry of this space possibly causing oscillations or resonations of the whole network. From my perspective, a fundamental quality of a transposition is to have the affordance and openness towards being re-positioned in relation to others. It has the potential of a continuous redefinition if its placing and that of the other elements in the net.

      So, yes, in its inception a transposition is a state defined relatively, but as all relations cannot be fully seen or understood until it is "placed" in some complex space and left to interact with the elements of this space, its positions is unstable, shifting in dependence of which perspective is being taken into account. In its being unclear and somewhat undefined, it is actually a continuous generator of deformations of this space. And that particular kind of deformations it produces exposed something about itself.

      Gerhard, I just reread your previous statement, and I found many similar thoughts. I wonder how you think your definition of transposition relates or resonates with your own practice.

      As you Michael I am stretching the term 'transposition' and probably attempting a redefinition in order to fit my practice. This happens in retrospective while I'm trying to understand what I've been doing in my artistic practice in terms of 'transposition'. I'm probably making the concept more unstable and unclear, trying to push and pull it and see how it "reacts" and from this reaction trying to understand more of what it means.

    • David

      Maybe I'm taking a detour here.

      I think there's a difference in understanding transpositions as the production of aesthetic artefacts on one side and as the posing of questions on the other, as Michael has said. I think that one perspective stresses the need of the transposition to be, in a way, self-contained, coherent, something one can point to, a sensible and stable trace. The other, stresses the "active part" of the transposition in that it indicates its affordance towards processes of reformulation of the transposed or its context, a potential agency inscribed into the work that generates new processes. From one side transposition stands for itself, from the other it stands in relation to other. And both perspectives are applicable, at the same time. This is of course my own interpretation of what you have said.

      Recalling when I was writing my Thesis in Computational Physics, my practice (without going much into detail of the specific themes) consisted in writing algorithms that would simulate the effects of slightly modified physical laws in order to account for effects which are known but not understood or simply to simulate systems which can not be otherwise experimentally tested. The outcome was data (number lists) describing the state of those systems. This data was then confronted with other simulation results of other algorithms generated by different intuitions about those modifications and with what is know to be true. Also here there are objects, artefacts (the data sets) which are coherent in the way they are produced, they stand for themselves as traces of a completed process. But they are also a material which allows for speculation, they contain the potential of speculation. The potential being inscribed into them by the exact, reproducible mathematical algorithmic formulation of their generation, which affords the "asking back" as Michael said.

      I do not want to draw any parallels (or find differences) between science and art, this rhetoric exercise is been already done enough. Instead, out of the conflation of my past and present practices and the interactions between them (which are there simply because these two elements collide in my person) I come up with a wording different from "aesthetic artefact", which could account for the two perspectives I have read (or interpreted) and bridge the gap between artefact and process. We could say that transpositions generate "aesthetic speculators". Gerhard what do would you think?

      Regarding "truth". Michael, maybe I don't understand what kind of truth you mean when you refer to the "truth" of the transposed. Doesn't truth need to be known in order to be? And what do we know of the transposed? Looking at the Transpositions Project, I would say that the only truth of the transposed, the data, is that it is generated by the whole complex scientific apparatus. Other than that, there is not much truth in there, otherwise scientist would not look at it.

      I would claim that truth is generated. Out of relationships different objects (transpositions?) have to each other. When this relationships become a stable network of connections, truth arises. It is the form which connects the objects, which rebuilds a continuum from a set of distinct positions. Is this what you mean Michael when you say truth is "a made link between separates"? Isn't it then that truth is actually disconnected from the particular, from the single object? As it can only encompass a whole set?

    • Gerhard

      I want to pick up on your question, Michael, concerning the truthfulness towards a source material, e.g. data. Being ‘true to the data’ means to be faithful to it, not to cheat when transposing, reformulating it. I agree that such kind of betrayal (or its contrary) will probably only be detectable in retrospect, when considering the difference between the source material and its transposition. But, as you point out, the trans positional operation itself is marked by infidelities caused by fragmentation or change of context. These are necessary to gain new perspectives. But to retain the possibility for an ‘umbilical cord’ – as you put it – to exist at all is a core methodological element. I also agree that trans positional material means nothing in transit – which reminded me of Herbert Brün’s notion of the ‘interregnum’ in his text “For Anticommunication” (http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/brun/anticom.html), a chapter in his book “When Music Resists Meaning”.

      I do prefer ‘transposition’ to ‘transformation’ mainly because the latter implies a kind of neutrality that makes it uninteresting. A transposition is a form of aggression towards the source material. It questions and destabilizes the data, opens it for speculation – as David put it. This is only acceptable if the transposition generates an added value. Being ‘true to the data’ does not relate directly to the data’s truth, which – I completely agree – is plastic.

      I also want to pick up on your question, David, about the ‘aesthetic speculator’. We have used the terms speculation several times now in our conversation and I find it an appealing one – thought based on incomplete knowledge. For me ‘speculation’ also forms an interesting alliance with ‘complication’ (or complexification – where do you see the difference, David?), which does not aim at an increase in clarity but possibility. I am using the notion of the ‘aesthetic artefact’ to refer to the (intermediary) result of a transpositional process, during which certain aspects have been in flux and which had to be fixed (or formulated) such that a form (formulation) can be apprehended. This is why it would be difficult for me to omit the aspect of the fixation the term artefact refers to. I think the gap between process and artefact should not be closed – it is a productive one. A process becomes readable through a sequence of artefacts.

    • David

      In my understanding the term 'complication' has a negative connotation. A complication impedes, it makes something more difficult. Whereas complexification stands for me in relation (and in opposition) to analysis as an operator applied to unknowns and as such it should not have any qualitative colouring.

      Analytic approaches proceed to dissect objects, breaking them down into smaller pieces in order to reformulate what is not understood as a sum of known parts. Instead at the core of complexification is the understanding that this sum might be less then to the entanglement of parts which generates the emergent essential properties of what is being observed. Complexification centres on the connections between parts rather than the parts as separate objects. I would say that complexification accepts the possibility of loosing some precision (I wouldn't say loosing clarity as this might depend on the perspective) in favour of not loosing the integrity of the observed and its entanglements, which would rather be lost if analytically studied.

      Complexification operates by intentionally creating more complex situations in terms of the entangled elements and observing the behaviour of the new states in order to understand the specificity of the involved parts. These new state are possibly (and maybe hopefully) unexpected or even surprising. So, I think that another key aspect of complexification is that it is an operation which accepts a partial loosing of control over the results. And I see this as one of the connections between speculation and complexification: as you say Gerhard, speculation is a statement based on incomplete knowledge, a bit "uncontrolled" statement which "dares" to leave a trace in an empty space, maybe also loosening strict logic or scientific ties and which poses a challenge. Do you agree? What other aspects of the alliance between speculation and complexification do you see?

      I think that a little clarification regarding my previous statement about the gap between artefact and process is needed, maybe I was not clear. I didn't want to point to the process which goes on "behind" the artefact and of which the artefact is a fixation point. I was referring to the potential of the transposition artefact of affording processes of reconfiguration and reformulation. Artefacts sequences have not only the function of making the process they are part of readable, of being a sort of display: what I'm trying to say is that a key property of these artefacts is actually to possess an agency which "backfires" on the process itself modifying it and which generates new possibilities and directions. These artefacts are actually co-generators of the transpositional processes. I thought that the term artefact would be too static to include this aspect. Does this make it any clearer?

    • Rests

      For example suppose we have a substance we don't know and we don't understand. chemical metaphor

      I think at the heart of a complexification is a perspective on the world which revolves around relationships and interconnections rather than on a collection of objects

      Aesthetic speculations

      how do we speak of tranpositions. In terms of other things, we reformulate. There is some sort of limit in this way of argumentation. It seems to me (or maybe better, it feels like) as it is very difficult to explain what we intend by transposition using a this kind of discussion.

      It seems that "transposition", maybe especially in the nexus or collisions of our practices, gains a sort of more and more elusive character. Unstable definition.

      But mybe this leads us to think of a different way of argumenting, discussing thinkgs which is not in the "traditional" form of language use as in science or even philosophy?

    • DONE Write answer to Gerhard's intro TP

DONE Review Abstract including Transpositions in it

DONE Write chapter

  • On Transpostiions
    • Gerhard

      Transposition is

      • to read data aesthetically, with an aesthetic attitude (e.g. like a landscape)
      • to read data as (if it was) an aesthetic artefact (art work)
      • to consider data as if it was created as an aesthetic artefact
      • adopt an aesthetic attitude towards data in order to make an aesthetic experience
      • to reformulate data as an aesthetic artefact (which implies/requires a certain understanding of it scientific formulation)
      • a critique of scientific (data) practices
      • a critique of the way data has been established and the world view that comes with it
      • exposes the fact that data is made (by the scientists)
      • consider data as an aesthetic artefact (created by scientific practice) and reformulate it through artistic practice
      • is the art to critique (without words) how something is thought
    • David
      • Behaviour:
        • behaviour is a term used in many disciplines with different definitions.
        • I will use the, (somewhat implicit) definition used in physics and mathematics
        • it is the way, the "how" something acts under certain conditions
        • behaviour denotes a sequence of states a system undergoes
        • Behaviour is the unfolding of change, the sequence of ordered variations of a system
        • it is decoupled from cause and effect (e.g. how an object falls under the effect of gravity is decoupled from the cause responsible for the object to fall).
        • It is the particular path the variations follow (e.g. the sequence of variations in speed and position of the falling object)
        • and the identifying characteristic of what is being observed.
        • behaviour produces differences, "differential" paths, sequence of variations of the systems state
        • the differences are the observables through which behaviour becomes perceptible, an aesthetic object
        • something can be observed when it produces differences to what is expected
        • differences to what: differences are to be found on different layers: differences produced by the observed system in itself, differences from the expectations, differences produced by different conditions, apparata, interpretations, analyses etc.
        • variations of all these produce a field, a differential field of "local" behaviours
        • variations, differences can be expressed and represented
        • something which is static, constant, (e.g. masking noise) is more difficult to perceive, and therefore to describe
      • Data is:
        • done, it is produced, data is facta (not facts as in English but done as in Latin)
        • is the result of a measurement, a process by which researchers elicit reactions (collision) from "something"
        • is there any actually existence of data as a material
        • data appears in the form of an effect: it is the effect of the measurement and it affects analysis and observation
        • it is something it is operated on: without analysing, looking at it, (re-)interpreting, it has no meaning
        • is a transitional state. it exists only between the measurement and the observation. as such data does not exist as a well defined (confined) object or phenomenon. it is produced by an apparatus (including the all the technical apparata as hardware as well as analysis tools or the expectations which led to the measurement itself) and is observed, analysed.
        • it exists between its cause (e.g. the collision) and the effect (e.g. the analysis of hits)
        • is inherently a behavioural object, unstable
        • scientific (analysis) representations tend to stabilise it, to render it "predictable"
      • Transposition is:
        • to "reactivate" data
        • not to analyse data, fixate it into a model or "explanation", constrain it into a theory
        • not to deactivate it, fixing it numbers, quantities, parameters models or equations
        • recover the active part of the data as a transitional state of observation
        • put it in the conditions to be active, difference producing processes
        • colliding data with other processes, environments, representations, reproducing differential fields of effects and therefore aesthetic experiences
        • to include the process of their generation, the apparatus, as a non-transparent, inactive, part of their appearance
        • therefore producing localities rather than "generalisationable" moments of observation
      • locality
      • differentiality
      • expectations / conditions
      • Ideas:
        • Differential space
        • diffractive reading
        • data is the phenomenon
        • does the detector exist at all

CANCELLED Correct with note of michael

  • State "CANCELLED" from "DONE" [2017-04-17 Mon 18:57]

DONE Review proof

Catalogue

DONE Start collecting data

See format described in file:///home/david/projects/transpositions/TP%20catalogue%20plan%202017-02-02.docx

  • Images

    50 per case study + 10 ca. from other photos of events are extra

    1. general readme

      The pictures are organised in five folders and labeled according to the case studies:

      • cs1 : neural networks
      • cs2 : deep inelastic scattering
      • cs3 : cosmology
      • cs4 : DNA folding
      • metaboliser :
      • in each of the metadata
      • tags:
        • Label
        • Data
        • Process
        • Question
        • Association
    2. cs1 : neuro

      • general:

        The data are recordings of the activity of single neurons in simulated neural networks, i.e. the electrical pulses they produce over time. The specificity of these networks and these simulations is that they attempt to model and emulate how memory recall processes in the human brain could possibly work. We mainly worked with data from a network that spontaneously recalls (remembers) previously learned patterns.

        The network consists of 2430 cells organised in groups of 30 in 9 so-called minicolumns and 9 hypercolumns: 9 x 9 x 30 = 2430. The recording of the activity this network is 200 seconds long. The electrical state of each of the cells is sampled every millisecond.

        The data set is "spikesnooscs200s".

      • imperfect matrix blinks

        • Label

          electrical activity of network at one time frame: pattern / no pattern

        • Data

          Spikes each cell produces at x seconds from the beginning of the simulation

        • Process

          The image surface if subdivided into 2430 equal subareas each assigned to one neuron. The recording of the network's activity is then played back at one 100th of the original speed. Whenever one of the cells spikes the corresponding subarea in the image is coloured. Images are extracted from a video recording.

        • Question

          Can we look at the state of the whole network at each time step? Can we transform this state into an image? How would it then look like when the network remembers a pattern? Can we patterns?

        • Association

          Has something of a "machinery": buttons and lights blinking and bleeping on the surface of a complex interface of a big machine. Like those one knows from films and whose function and workings, as in the case of this neural system, is hidden. One just sees the blinking lights.

      • images from video by david and michael

        • Label

          Correlation space: parametrisation a or b

        • Data

          The value of correlation, i.e. the degree of interrelation between each pair of neurons across the whole network at each time step of the simulation. Signals produced by neurons in one minicolumn are "condensed" into one i.e. in this case we work with 9 * 9 signals.

        • Process

          Electrical energy spreads across the network, eliciting the appearance of patterns, because the activity of one neuron is, in some way, more or less related to others. What a neuron "does" has an affect on one or more other cells: that is how an electrical signal "travels" through this net. Correlation is a mathematical measure that tells how much the activity of one neuron is related to that of another, how much a pair is acting in accord. Computing this value for each time step of the simulation and for each possible pair produces 81 * 81 different values. We reinterpret these as sort of "distances" neurons have between them: big distances when neurons are less correlated, and little distances when they act in a very close relation. We are therefore imagining a structure that geometrically transposes the interrelations of the whole network, an evolving structure showing condensation or rarefaction according to the connection strength between neurons. A dynamical system, composed of particles (the neurons) draws this figure in two dimensions by recursively finding the equilibrium of all forces acting between them (the correlations): a strong correlation transposes into a strong attractive force and so on. As the recording of the activity of the neural network is played back and the correlations are recomputed for each time step, the figure folds and unfolds.

          The dynamical system can be parametrised in different ways: how strong the forces on the particles are and of which kind, how fast the particles etc. Different parametrisations lead to different graphical results and different behaviours of the evolving figure.

          Images are sequences of successive images extracted from a video recording of the system's evolution.

        • Question

          Can a complex, potentially high-dimensional structure be transposed into a two dimensional figure which still respects the structure's relative relations? Can a dynamical system solve this problem for us? What kind of trace does this system leave in the result? Is the system's own behaviour separable from the behaviour which is in the data?

        • Association

          na

      • phase trajectories

        • Label

          phase space reconstruction: dimensions n - m

        • Data

          Electric potential measured and summed up over all network's cells at each time step of the recording.

        • Process

          A neural network is an example of a complex dynamical system emerging from the activity of a great number of interconnected and interacting elements, the neurons. This study attempts to apply this perspective literally. Taking the overall electric energy in the neural network computed for each time in the recording as the indicator of its state, the algorithm tries to reconstruct which form a dynamical system underlying the neural network might have. The resulting structure is a so-called "attractor", a geometrical surface in a space of 32 dimensions, on which the neural network's state travels and swirls. Its path leaves traces which can be looked at when projected onto 2-dimensional planes.

        • Question

          Can the network be interpreted as a dynamical systems? Which form might that systems then have? Would it have attractors? How would such attractors bend the space of possible behaviour? Which behaviour of the network might become visible under this assumption?

        • Association

          flight attempt growing mushrooms insect jumping on the wall ever blooming bouquet almost fell into etc.

        • Sequence
        • Media
      • hypercolumns score

        • Label

          Hypercolumns score page N

        • Data

          Trajectories along the reconstructed attractors of the neural network's dynamical system

        • Process

          The trajectories the state of the neural network draws along its attractors are the basis of the graphical score for the piece "hypercolumns". The piece is divided into 15 numbered miniatures of 2 minutes length; each should be played by a different instrument for 10 times in a loop. The miniatures can be played sequentially or at the same time.

          Images are single page out of the score.

        • Question

          Can the neural network be transposed into a piece? Can it be performed? Can musicians learn to play such that a similar behaviour as the network's might appear? Can musicians act like a neural network?

        • Association

          Look like the graphs one might see on the screen of monitoring device in an hospital. In this case the score is not monitoring patients' condition, their heart rate etc., but it tells which condition should be reached in order to be like the neural network. Instructions of how to be a neural network?

    3. cs2 : compass

      • general

        We are working with data from CERN; more precisely from Deep Inelastic Scattering events recorded by the COMPASS detector.

        The COMPASS (COmmon Muon Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy) research project focuses on the qualities of the elementary particles that are building blocks of protons and neutrons: the quarks. To do so protons are "broken apart" by colliding them with high energetic (i.e. fast) and heavy elementary particles, called muons. As a result of a muon hitting a proton, that is from an inelastic scattering event, a cascade of other particles is generated which spray into the 50 meters long detector which records which kind of particles these are, how fast and heavy they are: from this data the trajectories of each particle can be reconstructed and the points (vertices) of collision and interaction between computed.

        The data sets are "CERNphastmDST.hits.09010.root" for the hits data and "CERN39551q2.root" for the reconstructed data. This data originated from a 2004 run: a 160 GeV muon beam scatters of a LiD transversal polarised target.

      • pdf of map of compass detector

        • Label

          COMPASS technical drawing: from x to y meters

        • Data

          Technical drawing of the positioning of the single detector parts of the COMPASS experiment. The drawing consist of seven pages.

        • Process

          Each page of the drawing is stripped of any kind of text and scaled axes and printed.

        • Question

          What kind of aesthetic object is a particle detector? How much space is actually used, in the detector?

        • Association

          Building instructions for a device one does not know what it does until it's built. Some sort of "exploded" view of a machine.

      • causality report

        • Label

          "Causality report": event x plane zt

        • Data

          Of one scattering event, the so-called "hits", i.e. the positions (x,y,z) and the time relative to the event at which a particle has been recorded passing through one of the detector's parts. z is the axis along which the detector is build and along which the beam and the majority of the particles fly.

        • Process

          A scattering event contains a data set of four dimensional positions (x, y, z, t) (three Cartesian coordinated and time) for each of the recorded "hits", i.e. particles passing through the detector and "bumping" on it. These positions should have something that connects them, a sort of more or less hidden cause of their appearance there and then. There should be a cause for each of them that relates to all the others. This cause is inferred graphically with this algorithm:

          1. Take the hits of one event.
          2. Choose two dimension out of the four for each hit: call these u and v.
          3. For each hit find the nearest neighbors in each of the four directions along the chosen axes: +u, -u, +v, -v.
          4. Draw four lines from the hit's position to the found neighbors.

        • Question

          How does a figure drawn from the hits look like? How are those points distributed? Could the detector be seen through the figure? Can a causality be inferred rather then extracted? What kind of physics would produce such kind of trace?

        • Association

          n/a

      • blends

        • Label

          causality report: superimposition of 100 events. plane xt

        • Data

          "Causality report" drawings of hits of 100 events.

        • Process

          The drawings produced in the causality report study for 100 events are superimposed into one image.

        • Question

          What does a statistic of the "causality report" figure reveal? Is there anything appearing through the diffraction figure of the drawings?

        • Association

          Long exposure photograph of a resonating object, vibrating very fast.

      • continuous collision

        • Label

          continuous collision : sample frame

        • Data

          "Hits" position data of multiple events.

        • Process

          The drawing process is similar to that used for the causality report drawings, but a specific choice of the two dimensional plane which has been taken: the plane uses a mixture of z and t hits coordinates along the image's width and an equal mix of the x and y values along the images height. Once the hit position have been projected onto this plane, the drawing algorithm is the same as described for the "causality report". In the "continuous collision" time plays also a role: hits of successive collision events are continuously injected into the drawing while the oldest are deleted: the figure is continuously redrawn.

          The images are still frames of a video recording of "continuous collision" process.

        • Question

          Has the data taking process any kind of recognisable time evolution? What happens if all coordinates that play a role in the data are mixed?

        • Association

          n/a

      • circles for vertices

        • Label

          Positions and errors: at primary vertex in event 1 etc.

        • Data

          So-called "reconstructed" data: On hits data a complex analysis step is applied by physicists in order to reconstruct the particles' trajectories and the position where particles have interacted with each other, the vertices.

        • Process

          The dots are drawn at the position of one reconstructed vertex and at the positions of the trajectories of flying by particles, through the the image's plane. The circles represent the error of the reconstruction algorithm centered around those positions.

        • Question

          How big is the error the reconstruction algorithm produces? How big is the error in space? And in relation to the other objects' error in the scene? What happens in the intersections? Can anything be said?

        • Association

          Strange planetary systems. I wonder how they would evolve.

      • metabolisation
    4. cs3 : cosmo

      • general:

        The material of this case study is data from the "millennium" simulation of the evolution of the universe from the big bang to today. In particular, in this simulations models how the mass distribution observed today in the universe comes into being.

        The simulation divides the time between the big bang and the now into 63 steps. For each of these steps it provides galaxies which would could be found, their three dimensional positions and their masses. Further, the data indicates "descendant" of each galaxy, that is which galaxy in the successive time step would be its "child".

        Positions are normalised with respect to the expansion of the universe. This means that the data spans a region of space which has always the same volume.

        Data sets are produced by queries of the millenium simulation database: "http://gavo.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Millennium/".

      • none

        That is, they try to adapt their models of the basic forces of the universe and their evolution in time in order to fit their models with the observations. Reaching a better fit between model and observations would then mean having achieved a better understanding on the universe's history and its workings.

      • first pdfs

        • Label

          Galaxy clustering: time n, planar projection

        • Data

          Galaxy positions at one specific time step.

        • Process

          Positions of galaxies at a time frame are used as input for a drawing algorithm that produces three dimensional figures from sets of points. This algorithm first reduces the number of points by recursively condensing three nearest points into their barycentre. Then it produces a figure by joining points with lines in such way that only triangles are produced and the resulting structure is closed with no holes.

        • Question

          n/a

        • Association

          Icebergs of galaxies, what happens if they melt?

      • objs

        • Label

          Galaxies triangulation: time n

        • Data

          The three dimensional objects produced by the galaxy clustering.

        • Process

          The drawing process producing three dimensional objects (see above) recursively reduces points by triangulation, successively condensing groups of three points into one. These figures show a trace of this process for some of the produced objects.

        • Question

          What trace does the drawing algorithm leave? How can those traces, usually kept hidden, made visible? What is that what we ignore? Where is the difference between the drawing and the data?

        • Association

          Multiple vanishing points. Black holes hidden in between the galaxies?

      • traces

        • Label

          Galaxies genealogy tree: galaxy n, plane

        • Data

          Descendancy relationships between galaxies across time.

        • Process

          Choose galaxy at an early time. A line is drawn from its position in the universe to the position of its descendent and the position of its descendent and so forth. The result is a segmented path joining the positions of the galaxies which are in a family. The path is seen from one of the planes in the (x, y, z) three dimensional space.

        • Question

          How do galaxies descend from each other? What kind of path does a galaxy family draw in the universe?

        • Association

          Surprisingly random paths, bouncing here and there, wildly. Somehow I realise I would expect galaxies to behave more cautiosly.

      • christs (detail)

        • Label

          Universe genealogy tree: view from plane xy

        • Data

          Descendancy relationships between galaxies across the universe's evolution.

        • Process

          Starting from a galaxy, a line is drawn from its position in the universe to the position of its descendent. Only galaxies with a mass greater then 0.1% of the maximum are considered. All descendacy paths for all galaxies are drawn into the same figure but projected on different planes of the space (x, y, z, t) (t is time).

        • Question

          Is there any kind of evolution structure we could see when following this descendance indication?

        • Association

          Looks remarkably complex and somehow chaotic. Definitely more then expected. The borders of the universe seem to play a big role.

          Seems as something is hung and tightened on a frame. Like leather drying in the sun.

          n/a

      • foams

        • Label

          cosmological foam: time step n, plane xy

        • Data

          Chosen one time frame of the simulation, the positions of the galaxies.

        • Process

          Each galaxy position at one time step is joined with a line to the four nearest galaxies in each quadrant (at the same time).

        • Question

          What kind of structure or figure do galaxies position subtend? Is there something characteristic about the galaxies distribution in the universe? Is there a pattern?

        • Association

          Foams of different density: the older universe is much denser.

      • heritage

        • Label

          percolation

        • Data

          Positions along z of galaxies at all times.

        • Process

          The drawing process make a line between a galaxy position and the nearest to it along the z axis, but in the next and previous time step. The assumption is that the energy and the mass of a galaxy would in some way be injected into the future galaxies which are nearest to it. At the beginning there are few galaxies, but density of increases fast to a maximum which is then maintained almost steadily.

        • Question

          How does energy and / or mass distribute across the universe during its evolution?

        • Association

          Percolation phenomenon. Water infiltrating into terrain.

    5. cs4 : genes

      • general:

        The human DNA is composed by 23 chromosomes: long stripes on which all human genes are placed. All chromosomes are tightly packed within cells therefore forming knots and very entangled structures in which parts of one chromosome get very near to some other part of itself or of another chromosome. At these points genes on the chromosomes interact with each other activating or deactivating specific mechanisms of the cell they are in. DNA packaging has therefore also a functional role in steering the workings of a cell.

        The data we worked with in this case study, consists of lists of pairs of positions on chromosomes which are found to be interacting with each other. Genes are categorised in "promoter" or "enhancer" genes. There are two data sets labelled "human1" and "human2" corresponding to two successive experiments using different techniques.

      • first pdfs

        • Label

          Interactions: all / promoter promoter / promoter enhancer

        • Data

          Interactions between promoter and enhancer genes in and across humans chromosomes. Positions are indicated with three values:

          1. chromosome number
          2. position on the chromosome
          3. type of position: promoter or enhance ('p' or 'e')

          The data lists interactions as of a tuple of two positions. The data is taken from the "human1" data set.

        • Process

          Positions (chromosome number and position on chromosome) are taken as coordinates of points in an image. They are rescaled to fit in the image's dimensions. That is, height is divided by 24 (chromosomes 23 + Y or X) equally distant positions while positions on chromosomes are rescaled to fit the image's width. A line is drawn between points in the image corresponding to interacting positions.

        • Question

          How do interactions between genes spread out? Especially, how many interactions are there that span across chromosomes (diagonal and vertical lines)? Is there some clustering to be seen? Knots?

        • Association

          Dystopian street networks.

      • crawlers (imperfect)

        • Label

          genome combing: still image 1

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human1" data set.

        • Process

          The process is based on a model where chromosomes are simulated as long strings (the lines) composed by many joints. Each joint can interact with some other joint on the same string or on some other string according to a correspondence mapping DNA folding data to joint positions in the modelled strings.

          Interactions between joints are activated for groups of three mutually connected positions, visually marked by triangles, which are pulled together. When the interaction has brought the joints near enough the triangle passes on to other three joints to pull. There are seven triangles at the same time.

          The algorithm performs a long adaptation of the chromosome structure, trying to optimise localities first, instead of tackling the global problem. Therefore, the algorithm converges very slowly to an equilibrium.

          The images are takes from a video recording of the algorithm's performance.

        • Question

          Which spatial arrangement(s) of chromosomes would have produced the interactions we read from the data set? A classical inverse problem; which are know to be hard kind of problems. The process algorithm searches for possible solutions.

          How is it possible to compute the spatial distribution that leads to a specific set of interactions? What kind of algorithm would that be? How would it act on the data? What kind of performance would it produce?

        • Association

          Patiently combing through a bunch of rebellious chromosome hairs.

      • svgs of previous human tests knots

        • Label

          DNA knitting: simulation sample 1

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human1" data set.

        • Process

          (Attention: similar but slightly different than before)

          The process is based on a model where chromosomes are simulated as long strings (the lines) composed by many joints. Each joint can interact with some other joint on the same string or on some other string according to a correspondence mapping the DNA folding data to joint positions in the modelled strings.

          Starting from a distribution of the chromosomes as randomly crossing straight lines, the algorithm performs a very long and intense computation, trying to find which spatial distribution of the chromosome strings best approximates the interaction data. It knits a knot from a bunch of straight strings.

          Images are takes from a video recording of the algorithm's knitting performance.

        • Question

          Which possible spatial arrangement(s) of chromosomes would have produced the interactions we have in the data?

          How does the a chromosome knot look like?

        • Association

          I wonder which task is more difficult: knotting something into a specific form or disentangling it? I still have to finish learning knots for my sailing licence exam.

          Does compression always come with an increase of complexity or is it just a matter of perspective?

      • human2 short and long

        • Label

          curls : chormosome n plane xy n joints

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human2" data set. This data set presents not interaction across chromosomes: this is a major difference from the "human1" data set.

        • Process

          This data set presents no interactions which reach across chromosomes. All interactions are taking place in the same chromosome. Therefore, just single chromosomes are considered.

          We want to find out how a chromosome has to bend itself such that that specific positions touch and interact with each other. To do this we use an algorithm which simulates the chromosome as a string composed by many joints: there is a clear correspondence between joints on the string and positions an a chromosome. Joints on the string which are subject to both the forces that keep the string together (successive joints keep all at the same distance) and the forces which pull joints together according to the interaction data of the "human2" set. The algorithm simulates this system until a configuration is reached that can be considered an optimal approximation of the data.

          Images depict the end configuration of the string the algorithm has found, projected on one plane of the three dimensional space.

        • Question

          see above

        • Association

          Tumbleweeds. earthquake recordings Do not touch.

    6. metaboliser

      • general The "metaboliser" is a process which digests data sets of any kind. It outputs visual and sonic forms which depend on the qualities of the input data it , without applying any interpretations or analyses to it. It treats all data equally, but still is sensible to its internal structure.

        The "metaboliser" is a dynamical system, composed of oscillating an interacting elements. Data, values stored in the form of tuples of some length, inject energy in its elements and influence the coupling between them. As it is digested by the system, data sediments in the mechanical structure of the metaboliser, it becomes part of it.

        Any action or behaviour the metaboliser will show after the digestion of the data, are both the effect of its mechanisms and of the modifications the data has provoked in it. The visual and sonic forms, formulations, theories and signs it produces are inextricable compounds emerging from the interaction between the metaboliser process and the data.

      • data

        The images are sequences of successive frames from video recordings of the metaboliser activity after the digestion of a specific data set. The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its internal elements: the length of lines connecting points depict the degree of interrelation occurring between two of those elements.

      • question

        Is there a way to escape the hegemony of data? What happens if one completely ignores where data comes from? What happens if one treat all the data the same, as a sequence of numbers? Are there still any kind of specific qualities to be found?

    1. events NO!
      1. imperfect photos selection 10 or something
      2. zkm?
        1. Score hypercolumns 2 pages
        2. performance 2 photos
      3. ail
        1. speaker matrix
        2. fpu system
          1. screen of sc
          2. graph of non themalosation
          3. bulbs photo

DONE text

  • Gerhard

    Particle Fever

    Data exerts an irresistible fascination. How contagious this fascination can become has been staged effectively in the 2013 documentary “Particle Fever” directed by Mark Levinson, a film director with a PhD in theoretical physics from UC Berkeley. In his film, physicists at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research CERN were followed during seven years while trying to create the conditions to detect the Higgs boson, an elementary particle hypothesised half a century ago. The film exposes the scientists’ frenzy about the first data to be generated by the most expensive experiment in history. Besides nourishing the propaganda mandatory in legitimising such a gigantic endeavour, the film manages to strikingly document the enigmatic obsession with data, coming across as authentic affect of the scientists involved.

    Data promises new information and is traded as raw material for crafting new knowledge. But information does not lie bare in the data. It has to be extracted from the data by separating it from what is considered noise, i.e. irrelevant with respect to a particular perspective or question. Exploring data usually consists in purifying, analysing, and interpreting it according to a certain interest. There is of course no guarantee to find in the data what one is looking for. Moreover, in looking for something in particular, many other aspects will be overlooked. Likewise, things one has not been looking for may emerge and attract attention. This is why every data exploration leaves the doubt behind, that more information could lie dormant in the data, sustaining the enigmatic attraction mentioned above. Given the abundance of data produced today, one may even wonder if not most of what could be of interest is actually being overlooked.

    As opposed to what its etymology may suggest, data, as the plural form of datum (lat. for “the given”), is not given but made. It is the result of measurement or simulation, both highly controlled and potentially complex procedures of acquiring, formatting and collecting data. Data does not exist without observation. As observation is subject to various biases (e.g. confirmation, processing, or observational bias, as well as “cargo cult” practices) and interacts with the phenomenon observed (known as the observer effect), a large number of counter measures have to be taken to compensate for these undesired effects. Especially with large and singular experimental setups (such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN) it is difficult (or even impossible) to judge how successful these counter measures are. My physics teacher in high school used to repeat ad nauseam: “Wer misst, misst meist Mist” – the one who measures, mostly measures rubbish.

    Transposition

    Transposition means to take something from somewhere and put it somewhere else. It is simple. For instance, taking a glass of water standing on a table and putting it into the dishwasher. For this to happen, somebody must have a notion of a something being placed somewhere and how this placement relates it to the place. The glass containing water stands on the table. Glass, water, and table are subjected to the laws of gravity, which is why the glass can contain the water while keeping the table dry. Something containing something else while being supported by yet another thing.

    Probability

    Last summer I used to work outside at the graden table. On two days in a row at about the same time, an airplane would cast its shadow on me for a brief moment. The first day I was surpised about the experience of the brief alteration of the light. The second day I thought I was dreaming. What are the odds for such an event to recur?

    Promise

    Transposition is the promise for something more interesting to happen than with most other terms sharing the same prefix. Take transformation, for instance, which is too predictable and thus boring. Or translation, which is close to impossible and hence probably a waste of time. Possible exceptions being transcendence or transmutation, or, even better, transubstantiation, changing the substance of something without changing its appearance. Transposition also seems to work well as a nucleus of condensation or crystallisation, for creating clouds of connotations. At least this is how I experienced it so far in the context of the project “Transpositions: Artistic Data Exploration”, which was intentionally started without a clear definition of the concept. It is a placeholder for something to be considered later, expected (or at least hoped) to emerge from the situation created by the project. Transposition is a self-referential strategy preventing practice aligning too much with established concepts, always demanding one more step of transposition. In this sense complication seems to be at the heart of transposition.

  • David

    the constructivist trap leads into a process thinking of hos we arrive to knowledge formulations

    description of the metabolisator system

    • The metabolisator

      Data is "done", it is "facta", produced. It is the consequence of squeezing out of the reality some juice, some material, using the for the scientific endeavor specific detecting devices as well as the theoretical known theoretical concepts, ideas which are also part of a technological toolset which is at the disposition of the scientists. So, data, is done. It is constructed.

  • Introduction

    GE: I am also opting for a positive notion of complication, which we may understand as an unsystematic form of destabilisation and complexification as a systematic one. The latter would correspond to our usage of dynamical systems to confront a data set with a complex system to find out how exactly it will settle in this situation, in this context. The former, complication, may correspond to what you Michael call a “non-formal solution”: an unsystematic intervention in the transpositional chain or process, guided by artistic principles.

    MS: Crucially, in theory, we could claim that whatever we did could also have been arrived at through formal operations, but this is not what we did in practice. Rather, we have positioned two distinct modes in close proximity without deciding which of the two might eventually be epistemically successful. Ultimately, therefore, I have to opt for the possibility that complexification will not replace complication. However, in saying this, I also opt—against David—for a positive understanding of “complication.”

    Under this kind of re-interpretation of "complication", I might agree on an non-negative understanding of the term.

    Personally however, I find it difficult to confront my experience working with and on transpositions with such clear cut borders between positive or negative, systematic and unsystematic, formal and non-formal as to what would be driven by artistic principles and what not or between distinct modes. A discourse based on dichotomies might fail, in my opinion, to address the fundamental complexity of the practice we are operating with in reality. A praxis in which oppositions do not remain invariant, but are entangled and mutually interacting in an transposition process.

    MS: This argument also further explains what transposition might mean here. First, transpositions are unrewarding dialectically; we do not get further down into anything more truthful. Epistemically positive or negative registers have to be abandoned. Transpositions simply move material from A to B, and, as it is moved, it settles differently. Second, if we can speak of “truthful” actions at all, it is not on the level of meaning but on the level of operation: as we move material from A to B, we are keen not to have them contaminated with something completely different, including our own expectations and taste, but also with computational artefacts. In other words, we want to maintain a phenomenon as we completely change context, something for which there is no referent guaranteeing anything such as “truthful” representation. And third—this time not as a question between making and writing—transpositions can also guide the relationship between material and form. However, not as the right or wrong form for a material—that is, fitting representations—but as form and material co-producing each other in a transposition.

    • Rests

      I think, the perspective I was hoping to formulate was instead based on an interpretation of transposition in terms of operation rather then difference; as a process generating the path between one position or artefact and another. In retrospect I would formulate my motivation as the interest in finding invariants rather than distinctions. By invariant I do not mean qualities which make A and B the same. Rather I intend the axes subtending the space where the transposition movement unfolds, the dimensions which actually generate their differential positions.

      and to shed light on how oppositions are actually entangled in it.

      An understanding of transposition which decays into the identification of two distinct objects or even opposing positions, say A and B, is inherent in its own notion and seems to enter also into the discourse about it.

      This might be naive, but I find these couples too dependent from the perspective they are looked at, from the context they are used in as well as from the narrative they serve, to be clarifying.

      I would like to try to take a step back and look at the path our discourse has taken here.

      I really would opt for a kind discussion in which rhetoric tools would rather not be use. It makes very difficult to exit these kind of arguments with a clearer idea of what is actually been said.

      I seem to have provoked exactly what

      Actually my primary aim was to avoid terms that have either a negative or positive inkling; which

      I might agree on

      rather, using the

      impeding menaing that it doesn not make its own narration evident or clear.

      tearing up a space between formal and non-formal approaches which looks and demands back what the formality is and how much it does enter processes of data transformation

      Time to transcend cathegories: which is a fundamental propension implicit in transposition

      search for invariants

      I may accept this kind of re-interpretation of meaning of "complication",

      pitfall of this kind of dialectic path we have taken here. Probably my bla, from my perspective, of the negative connotation of the word "complication" was the origin fo this kind of discussion, but I

Proofreading

  • 113 to 125 cancel "black holes etc." Multiple vanishing points. Black holes hiding in between the galaxies -> Multiple vanishing points
  • 151 to 182 add "of" The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its internal elements: -> The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its of internal elements:
  • 238 to 244 correct "if" with "is", cancel commas The image surface, if subdivided into 2430 equal subareas, each assigned to one neuron -> The image surface is subdivided into 2430 equal subareas each assigned to one neuron.
  • 245 to 256 plus 258 correct whole incomplete sentence The dynamical system can be perametrised… -> The dynamical system can be parametrised in different ways controlling who strong the forces acting on the particles are, abd of which kind, how fast the particles are etc."
  • 257 and 258 texts are swapped text of page 258 is for page 257
  • 274 and 275 add "a": This looks like the graphs one might see on the screen of monitoring device in an hospital. -> This looks like the graphs one might see on the a screen of monitoring device in an hospital.

sound track

  • Metaboliser parameters
  • Gerhard Player

    <2018-01-19 Fri 13:00>–<2018-01-19 Fri 14:00>

    • Ideas
      • Der AB spielt gleichzeitig Transpositionen (TPs) und Feldaufnahmen (FAs) in variablem Mischungsverhältnis. Wovon das Mischungsverhältnis abhängt, muss noch geklärt werden.
      • Die Steuerung des AB basiert auf einem dynamische System (DS) mit so vielen Elementen wie Seitenintervallen (im Moment 72 - siehe File im Anhang).
      • Wenn eine Seite ausgewählt wird, dann wird jenem Element des DS Energie zugeführt, das der Seite zugeordnet ist.
      • Die Eingabe einer Seitenzahl führt dabei auf jeden Fall dazu, dass eine passende TP ausgewählt und abgespielt wird.
      • Wenn eine neue TP gestartet wird, muss eine eventuell bereits spielende ausgeblendet werden. Gleichzeitig kann die aktuelle FA auch ausgetauscht werden, muss aber nicht.
      • Wenn der Zustand eines der Elemente des DS einen Schwellwert übersteigt, löst das DS die Auswahl einer neuen TP aus dem entsprechenden Seitenintervall aus und gibt die entsprechende Seitenzahl aus.
      • Wie die Auswahl einer TP in einem Seitenintervall geschieht muss noch geklärt werden. Details können auch von der Art des Seitenintervalls abhängen.
      • Wir werden auch Materialien aus Stockholm verwenden (z.B. Complexity and Complication).
      • Wir werden noch mehr “passende” FAs aussuchen (z.B. von Martin).
      • Mitte Februar sollte der neue AB fertig sein.
    • Page ranges

      3 - 5 10 - 11 17 - 18 32 - 33 44 - 45 66 - 67 102 - 103

      104 cs3 data MILLENIUM

      152 - 154 232 - 233

      242 cs1 data NEURO

      337 - 338 534 - 535 605 - 606 643 - 644

      624 cs4 data DNA 672 cs2 data CERN

      709 - 710 723 - 724 805 - 806 colophon

      Gerhard

      6 - 9 DRCI 12 - 16 DRCI 19 - 31 DRCI 34 - 43 DRCI 46 - 60 Metabolisations COMPASS 61 - 65 DRCI detector groups 68 - 77 DRCI detector groups 78 - 98 Making of DRCI 99 - 101 DRCI sound analysis 283 - 303 Killen 304 - 318 spikes noosc 319 - 330 metabolisation spikes 331 - 336 DA TA rush traces 339 - 340 alpha sync 341 - 363 Rebody 463 - 475 Metabolisation genes 715 - 722 Metabolisation of galaxy cluster data (WRONG TITLE) 725 - 729 Metabolisation of galaxy cluster data (WRONG TITLE) 730 - 736 xray images 788 - 802 Rattler

      David

      105 - 152 millenium simulation 155 - 186 metabolisations 243 - 249 electrical activity 250 - 257 Correlation space 1 258 - 262 Correlation space 2 263 - 278 phase space reconstruction 279 - 282 hypercolumns 625 - 627 Interactions p/e 628 - 639 genome combing 640 - 643 genome knitting 645 - 649 Curls DNA 650 - 670 Strings DNA 673 - 680 COMPASS technical drawing 681 - 694 Causality report 695 - 706 Continuous collision

      Michael

      187 - 209 Brain 210 - 214 Freeform 215 - 220 Paris 222 - 231 Distance Circles 234 - 241 Distance Circles 364 plate 365 - 462 Gene interactions 476 plate 477 - 533 Collision (various) 536 - 604 Lansner 607 - 623 Lansner 707 - 708 Positions and errors 711 - 714 Positions and errors 737 - 787 Galaxy clusters 803 - Treetops 804 ? plate 807 - 810 Treetops

  • Player

Addresses

  1. Gerhard Mallot PhD CERN PO Box Z02500 CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland
  2. Mr Espen Sommer Eide Bergen Center for Electronic Arts C. Sundts gate 55 5004 Bergen Norway
  3. Herr Carsten Seiffarth singuhr e.v. Danziger Straße 101 D-10405 Berlin Germany
  4. Mr Johnathan Impett Orpheus Instituut Korte Meer 12 9000 Gent Belgium
  5. Prof. Sally Jane Norman New Zealand School of Music Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington 6140 New Zealand
  6. Ms Monica Bello CERN J19200 CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland
  7. Prof. Klauer Giorgio Conservatorio di Musica Benedetto Marcello di Venezia Sestiere di San Marco, 2810 30124 Venezia Italy
  8. Prof. Pietro Polotti Conservatorio Tartini via Ghega 12 34132 Trieste Italy
  9. Lecturer Paolo Girol Estonian Academy Of Music And Theatre Composition Department Tatari 13 Tallinn 10116 Estonia
  10. Mario Verdicchio PhD Università degli Studi di Bergamo Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, dell'Informazione e della Produzione viale Marconi, 5 24044 Dalmine (BG) Italy
  11. André Rangel Macedo PhD Universidade Católica Portuguesa Research Center For Science And Technology Of The Arts Rua de Diogo Botelho, 1327 4169-005 Porto Portugal
  12. Assistant Professor Miguel Carvalhais Faculdade de Belas Artes da Universidade do Porto Design Department Av. Rodrigues de Freitas, 265 4040-021 Porto Portugal
  13. Assistant Professor Luísa Ribas Faculdade de Belas-Artes da Universidade de Lisboa Largo da Academia Nacional de Belas Artes 14, 1200-005 Lisboa, Portugal
  14. Luís Nunes Faculdade de Belas Artes da Universidade do Porto Av. Rodrigues de Freitas, 265 4040-021 Porto Portugal

Catalogue Presentation MUMUTH

<2018-10-12 Fri>–<2018-10-13 Sat>

  • Signale Graz Barlow

    <2018-10-11 Thu>

  • Gerhard, Andreas, Martin, Transpostions

    <2018-06-27 Wed 11:00>–<2018-06-27 Wed 12:00>

  • Gerhard, Michael, Skype

    <2018-02-06 Tue 11:00>–<2018-02-06 Tue 12:00>

    1. audio player
    2. x genome data
    3. x dots video files raspi
    4. x text Graz
    5. x addresses catalogue
  • Gerhard Martin rehearsals MUMUTH

    <2018-09-21 Fri>–<2018-09-22 Sat>

  • Text Speaker Matrix

    A neural network is an tangled compound of objects. A convoluted collection of nodes and connections between them, an inextricable knot in which pulses spread from one point to the others in complicated paths. Each single element contributes to the behaviour of the whole network: a vibration that pulsates in a strange oscillation and appearing as an coherent phenomenon.

    Speaker Matrix uses data of a simulated neural network modelling how memory recall processes in our brains might function. The sound installation moulds this data, expands and stretches it in time and space, by slowing it down and, without breaking its internal connections, kneading it into a rectangular shaped dough. Into this "mass", 30 probes are inserted, arranged in a matrix: these are auscultation points through which what happens around each position is made audible by one loudspeaker.

    As all loudspeakers play at the same time, the Speaker Matrix transposes the behaviour of the neural network into a sound that, according to the intricate spreading of signals through the network, exhibits spatial movements, vibrations that travel through the loudspeaker arrangement and through the exhibition space.

    • Notes

      The whole network vibrates and pulsates , but at the same time hiding how each element in the network contributes to it.

      transate into a spatial movements of the

      spatial

      All these points are always activated

      attempting to bridge

      and moulds it into something different

      brigde between dimensions

      knead

      makes it impossible to perceive

      The speaker Matrix is a sound installation

      Departing from data of the activity of a simulated network of neurons which attempt to model memory recall processes of the human brain

      multiple points of auscultation, probing the behaviour of the network and transposing it into a temporal and spatial acoustic phenomenon.

      by probing the activity of a group of neurons around

      this data is then audified

DONE Catalogue Browser check Granstroms code

Browser David appear

<2018-05-07 Mon 15:00>–<2018-05-07 Mon 16:00>

Browser David appear

<2018-09-17 Mon 13:30>–<2018-09-17 Mon 14:30>

Da-ta catalogue howto

[1] $ brew install yarn Warning: yarn 1.3.2 is already installed [2] $ git clone https://<user>@bitbucket.org/dkg/transpositions-catalogue.git [3] $ cd transpositions-catalogue [4] $ yarn install [5] $ yarn run dev

Kommenatare:

[1] Du wirst einen anderen Packagemanager verwenden [2] Du hast einen Bitbucket-User, oder? [3] wenn alles klappt, dann hast Du das Verzeichnis [4] installiert alle notwendigen Node module in nodemodules (node musst Du installiert haben) [5] started einen Webbrowser und die App lokal zum testen

David Granström appear

<2018-08-06 Mon 10:00>

David Granström appear

<2018-11-05 Mon 15:00>–<2018-11-05 Mon 16:00>

DONE Researchcatalogue posters

  1. Rebody
  2. Lansner
  3. Catalogue (performance)
  4. Jackfield
  5. Clusters
  6. (Metaboliser)
  7. (Continuous collision)
  8. (foams sequence)
  9. (dynamics with bulbs video)
  10. (genetics + faster videos)

Metaboliser Text

At the starting point of the Metaboliser's

Compass text (inflatable)

Scattering describes the process in which a particle with high energy called a beam collides with another, the target. In the deep inelastic scattering the energy of the beam is so high that the target breaks apart, revealing its constitutive elements. Usually, in physics, the collection of the smaller, potentially simpler, parts that something can be broken into is said to be its "spectrum". This is very much like speaking of the spectrum of a sound when we calculate which sum of single frequencies it is equal to.

At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing and understanding the characteristics of the spectrum of the proton, a primary building block of atoms and of all the matter with which we can interact. A very high energy beam of elementary particles called muons (a type of heavier electron) collides with the target protons that breaks into its spectrum, the quarks. These spray into the 50 meter long spectrometer, where they cause effects which can be detected.

In opposition to the somewhat childish but seemingly effective strategy of analysing something by breaking it into pieces to see 'how it works', in this case the products of this breaking apart actually remain ineffable. This touches the very essence of the problematic mode of existence of the quantistic world, bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty. To illuminate how the indeterminacy of these processes seems to infect the whole apparatus of the COMPASS experiment is the focus of this case study. We intend as 'apparatus' not only the spectrometer as a measuring device, but the whole aggregate of scientific theories, technical tools and social interactions in which the experiment is embedded. In particular we observe how the "reconstruction" process, mediated by multiple steps of re-interpretation and interpolation of the data, is not only a necessary step of analysis, but also a generative transformation which produces new forms.

At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing the inner structure of the proton, a primary building block of matter. By causing collision with a high velocity stream of other elementary particles, the mouns, they can "break it open" an then observe the constituents of the proton as they spray into the 50m long detector. This apparatus touches on the very essence the quantistic phenomena, bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty, and indeterminacy which diffuses into the whole experimental appararatus. An uncertainty that might be seen as an error increasing factor, a disturbing element in the chain of iterative analysis and reconstruction processes; or it might be re-interpreted as the source of new forms.

QED

Tasks [2/3]

  • [X] Upload and reformat QED data arrays
  • [X] SC recomplile?
  • [ ] Contact Gattringer for QED data

Old

Opening Spaces for Understanding Vetenskapsrådet Site call

DONE Ask Alois

Ask isf the collaboration is possible

DONE Call Giacomo

Threads

VRserver

Took some time to find out that a hidden "WHEELEDARCBALL" profile was registered… Unregistering it gives the possibility to register custom camera profiles.

Ugly bug for 2d drawing: call scene.beginScreenDrawing(); and endScreenDrawing(); two times (!) then it works.

Prückl Stubentor

Space

To read

Edger Morin: On Complexity

Melanie Morin: Complexity: a guided tour

Transmutation

  1. Alchemie
  2. Transmutation of molecules

Rattle

Rewrite with no blocks

Phases

:ORDERED: t

Rebody

Find videos, upload

Huddersfield

<2016-05-06 Fri>–<2016-05-08 Sun>

Grz -> Dub (No Trolley!)

<2016-05-06 Fri 07:00>–<2016-05-06 Fri 11:30>

Dub -> Grz (No Trolley!)

<2016-05-08 Sun 17:55>–<2016-05-08 Sun 23:15>

Notes

  • CV
  • Challenges
    1. What are the consequences of representing sounds as point sources as in standard spatialisation techniques? Can we develop alternatives?
    2. How can the spatial dimension be thought of as an integral part of sound synthesis?
    3. What are the consequences and limitations for composers and audience's listening attitude introduced by a stardardisation of spatialisation techniques?
    • Notes 5 mins
      1. IEM
        • I'm working at the IEM, the institute bla in Graz
          • More to myself?
        • One of the institute's main research themes is in the development and the refinement of spatial acoustics and spatialisation algorithms
        • Research is mostly focussed around ambisonics algorithm.
        • During the years lot of know how has been accumulated on and around ambisonics
        • Also thanks to the presence of multiple systems and venues where it is possible to work with multichannel audio systems.
        • A great number of artisitc productions using ambisonics have also been supported.
      2. artistic research projects
        • The Spatialisation theme has not only been approached from the perspective of research in acoustics, but has also been the main theme for several artistic research project such as
        • The main aim was to further the practice of electroacoustic composition especially with respect to the treatment of the spatial in music
        • the OSIL project, which is ongoing "Orchestrating Space by Icosahedral Loudspeaker"
        • and The choreography of sound project, where I was part of the project's research team.
        • Two of the themes which were central in the choreography of sound project I believe to offer an interesting discussion points in our round.
      3. Representational perspective
        • In the project we explored alternatives to thinking space through existing spatialisation approaches.
        • in particular we think that these approaches conceive spatialisation as solving a problem of representation.
        • Spatialisation is often understood as providing a window into a virtual sound space, which is represented by rendering processes trying to emulate the effects of physical sound propagation.
        • The assumption is that there are objects (sound sources) which are depicted of rendered audible through spatialisation.
        • are there alternative to that? are there other ways of thinking about the spatial properties of sound in an electroacoustic composition?
        • A possibility could be to think about the spatial in music is to compose sound such that its spatial properties (maybe extent or volume etc.) appear in the listener's experience.
        • So compose sound such that it has specific affordances for its spatial properties to emerge.
      4. separation sound spalialisation <-> synthesis
        • as a consequence we thought of spatialisation as extending onto all levels of sonic organisation
        • Standard approaches usually present spatialisiation as a separate, step of composition.
        • A more deep integration may be an alternative where it is not enough to include spatialisation paramaters in the composition
        • rather, the spatialisation algorithm itself subject to composition
        • that is, a composition also take place on the level of the spatialisation technique.
        • a composition of sound which integrates organisation in time and space.
      5. Incribing sound in a specific hall, not for all venues and different sound projecttion systems
      6. No sweet spot
    • Gerhard's text
      • Loudspeaker artist
        • composer and sound artist (using loudspeakers => loudspeaker artist)
          • planning to use other computer controller sound sources
          • like with all culture technique, practice precedes concept formation
        • sound as a spatio-temporal phenomenon
          • audition best adapted to explore spatio-temporal phenomena
            • phenomena where spatial and temporal aspects are equally important
            • dynamics of neuronal systems (how our brain works)
            • spreading of an infectious disease in an epidemic
            • thunderstorm, look in the night sky (ZR!)
          • listening: activity to engage with spatio-temporal phenomena
          • allows to reflect about complex relationship of objects in time and space
          • when thinking about time and space, sound is a powerful model (slow, ZR!)
          • spatio-temporal phenomena of similar complexity than our everyday world
        • my practice
          • possibility to compose the temporal and spatial features of sound
            • rhythm, pitch, timbre and their interaction with the environment
          • concerned with uniformisation of loudspeaker projected sound
        • talk today
          • report about an artistic research project called CoS
          • in particular about an installation called Zeitraum
          • context explaining how this bold and minimalistic work came about
      • Loudspeaker
        • loudspeaker is a fantastic instrument
        • changes in electrical current => changes in sound pressure (sound)
          • electrical current designed and transformed with DSP / computer
        • but we use it in a very limited ways
        • most of the time we like to think of it as a transparent transducer
      • Directivity
        • as compared to other sources, speakers have uniform radiation pattern
          • at IEM we develop alternative approaches (IKO)
        • usually we can tell if a sound is projected through a speaker or not
          • experiments IRCAM
        • identity of a natural source is also determined by its radiation pattern
        • how do we become aware of it
          • interaction of the source with the acoustic of the space
          • how source excites room, how rooms responds
          • movement of the source and / or movement of the listener (e.g. trumpet)
      • Ensembles
        • we have standard ways of positioning loudspeakers in rooms
          • optimised for certain purposes (2-ch stereo, 5.1, Ambisonics, WFS)
          • reduce the influence of the acoustics of the hall
          • most of the time speaker are pointed at listener
        • they are based on assumptions
          • we know where the listeners are
          • that they sit
          • do not move (much, only head)
            • important to get used to perspective
      • Spatialisation
        • spat is about positioning a sound source at a location in a space
        • concept of rendering sources, placing them on an acoustic canvas
        • corresponding spatial recording and reproduction techniques
          • stereophony, Ambisonics, [WFS]
        • 2 or more speakers in a particular arrangement functioning as a
          • display on which sound is rendered
          • forms window onto a sound stage, sources can be placed and move
        • sound is treated as a sound source
          • typically as a point source, appearing in a 2d or 3d panorama
        • concept of spatialisation: source is independent of its spatial position
          • sound and space are thought independently
          • sound exists first and is then put into space
        • this is common in SMC research
        • shapes the way sound artists and composers deal with sound and space
        • spat deeply ingrained in our practices, tools, thinking about sound & space
        • built into all our audio tools
          • 2-channel stereophony: rendering is built into mixing desks (panpot)
        • sound and space is such a wonderful and rich topic
        • it is a reduction to think sound and space only in terms of spatialisation
        • many techniques also have serious drawbacks
          • sweet spot, unless you use wave field synthesis or mono
        • technological promises, most techniques under deliver
        • ideology of technical feasibility neglects complexity of acoustic phenomena
        • listening via loudspeakers is a cultural technique
          • they precede the concepts generated from them
          • our use of speakers determines the concepts which may form
        • acoustics of the projection should interfere as little as possible, but:
        • sound and space are inseparable
          • sound is a complex spatio-temporal phenomenon
          • you cannot separate the temporal from the spatial aspects
          • if you try to remove the space from a sound, you will change its identity
            • billiard balls, 3ms
      • Alternatives
        • in my practice I am experimenting with alternatives, examples:
        • mix real and virtual space, allow movement: Raumfaltung
        • Cataboliser, structure space, stage for audience, work with reflections
        • Movement links space and time: Random Access Lattice
      • Places to be inhabited
        • create place audience wants to engage with
        • create rich sonic experience, places the audience wants to inhabit
        • with loudspeakers, usually many
        • usually quite site specific, mostly in an acoustic sense
        • create a place by inscribing sound into space
        • writing as an interaction between materials (sound, acoustics)
      • The Choreography of Sound
        • was the title of an artistic research project
        • developed and carried out together with RGA
        • funded by Austrian Science Fund FWF (PEEK)
          • further develop artistic concepts in a highly experimental context
          • a limited period of being liberated from the forces of the art market
        • was about rethinking sound spatialisation
          • alternative ways of thinking sound and space
          • recalibrate our listening
        • create a lab for that
          • used our concert hall in Graz as an aesthetic laboratory (experience)
          • mix practices: electroacoustic composition, sound art
          • mix of concert and installation situation
            • audience may move, duration may be fixed
        • arrived at rather extreme formulations compared to thinking in terms of spat
          • => Zeitraum
      • Aesthetic lab
        • introduce Ligeti hall, video
        • speaker positions for hemisphere
        • use time in hall to listen
        • usually we listen to our sound material in the studio, compose in the studio
        • use the speaker and hall in which the piece will be performed
        • first exercises: orientation of speakers
          • even if they are very far away, gives the sound an identity
        • usually the speakers are pointed towards the audience
        • avoid room reflections in the sound projections
        • but room reflections give the sound identity
        • what makes the sound engage with the room
        • compose this engagement with the room, the space, the place
        • shape sounds such that they don’t sound as if they were projected
        • but forms a unit with the loudspeaker, its radiation pattern and the space
          • irrespectively of the listening position
        • use speakers as individual sound sources
          • not as pixels of a display to render sound sources (=> spat)
      • Compose speaker setup
        • possibility to compose the speaker setup
        • small differences, big effects, explore this space
        • traditional thinking patterns makes it difficult to compose a setup
        • created random setups, explore them, analyse their qualities, choose one
          • worked with it for the rest of the project
      • In-situ composition
        • engage with performance venue during composition
        • support through StiffNeck
          • ICMC 2014: The Electroacoustic Music Performance Venue in a Box
        • use geometric information of hall and speakers (basis for Zeitraum)
      • Space filling textures
        • working with textures for a long time
        • always the same, never the same, identity and variation
        • address difficulties of spatially distributed textures (breakage)
        • no sweet spot, sounds good anywhere, but also different anywhere
        • audience may move, change their perspective
        • volume solution like with wave field synthesis
        • has to work in any case: if you stand still, if you move, slow and fast
        • hypothesis: grain timing in the same range as propagation delays
      • Among
        • CoS case study on space filling textures
        • visual setting, light from below
        • 4 background layers, 4 foreground layers, one spat solo (DBAP)
        • background: slowly shifting overlapping clouds of noise
          • distance based random walk
          • movement related to speaker configuration (inscription)
          • made so that you can listen to it for hours (tested)
          • 4 different noise materials (play them), play background
        • foreground: 4 layers, slicing processes, slowly shifting window
          • fixed rates (in ms): 100, 120, 130, 210
          • speaker chosen at random, repetition control
          • periods in s: 3.3, 3.96, 4.29, 6.93
          • make/play example
          • rule: never the same sound from more than one speaker
            • comb filter effect cause by panning
            • creates hybrid source (radiating from 2 places)
            • works only in a small area
          • rule: repetition only with directed variation
            • need repetition to create texture
            • need variation (slow development) to stay interested
        • spatialised solo
          • use a traditionally spatialise sound object as a contrast (enhances both)
          • there must be a reason for a sound to move
          • movement must also be reflected in other qualities of sound than location
          • used physical model to create movement
          • movement informs synthesis and spatialisation
          • play excerpt (foregrounds + solo)
        • reconstruction of a discovery
          • occlusion with low speaker (walk up to them)
          • idea to add reverb, mixed 33 channels as reverb input => strange rattle
          • temporal dispersion created a variation I was not aware of
          • use Zeitraum diagram to explain (increase rate)
          • last step was done when preparing for this talk!
            • created a family of complicated situation for other reasons (repetition control)
            • deviation from regularity is the difference of successive deviations
            • propagation delays are randomised, variation maximised (not intended)
            • (31 * 31 - 31) / 2 = 465
        • how to share this finding
          • explain it, as I just did
          • create a piece that highlights this aspect => Zeitraum
          • finding can be inferred form the experience of the artwork
          • art work that makes a claim that this is important
        • fundamental condition of electroacoustic music practice
          • find better formulation
        • formed the claim Zeitraum is invested with
      • Artistic Research
        • to know if what I think I am doing is actually what I am doing
        • artistic research is research based on artistic practice
        • exploring the world through artistic practice
        • SAR, Unconditional Love
        • research because it aims at communicating findings
        • scrutinising one’s own artistic practice
        • when preparing for sharing, insights happens
        • moment of critique, methodological practice of doubt
        • ideal (Erkenntnis durch ästhetische Erfahrung)
          • finding or insight through aesthetic experience
          • artwork has to have special qualities of allowing for a claim to appear in the experience of it
          • priming the experience is ok
          • has to work aesthetically independently of it working epistemically
        • values
          • consider two types of values objects may have: aesthetic and epistemic
          • anything may have aesthetic and/or epistemic value, if attributed
          • research reports are made to have epistemic value
            • may have aesthetic value, e.g. formula e=mc2
          • artworks are made to have aesthetic values and may have epistemic value
          • epistemic works are made to have aesthetic and epistemic value
            • must be able to support an epistemic claim
            • epistemic claim is support through aesthetic experience
            • must be able to function as artworks independently
            • strength lies in insight through experience, engagement with the artwork
            • experience of an epistemic work can be primed in any suitable way
            • it is not important that the claim becomes apparent through aesthetic experience
            • but that the claim is supported by aesthetic experience, resists the critique of experience
            • the claim has typically been produced in a research process
            • claim of Zeitraum: speed of sound is slow enough to
      • Zeitraum
        • make a piece only about temporal dispersion
        • Zeitraum consitst of one layer of Among
          • optimised to work best in the Ligeti hall
          • with its very acoustics and the speaker configuration chosen
          • regular beat, slower (6 Hz - maximum effect with hall dimensions)
          • percussive noise burst (resembles hit on snare drum)
          • short decay, allow for conversations (social space)
          • almost no variation in sound (little needed)
          • one of the most minimalist pieces I have ever made
        • compositional approach
          • create a location without dispersion, pattern can be heard regularly
          • scientific gesture of normalisation (time alignment)
          • mark position with light spot on the floor
        • play auralisations
        • play video
        • summary
          • not only an aesthetic and but also an epistemic claim
          • brings forth a non-discursive proposition: there is an issue
          • knowledge is shared through aesthetic experience
          • aesthetic experience creates a memorable impression
          • time space navigable through locomotion
          • social space stimulating verbal communication
          • experience of interactivity with a non-interactive system
          • acoustic, compositional, and listening space coincide
        • other forms of sharing: Zeitraum as interactive diagram
        • develop the idea of the piece further
        • can be said to have been constructed through the circumstances
          • Ligeti hall, movable speakers
          • idea of GR
          • loudspeaker test sequences
          • space filling textures
          • reconstruct how this formulation has been found
          • a formulation is always a formulation of something, so it is not identical with this something, but without the formulation the something would probably not exist, nor would the formulation - what is this???
      • Rests
        • we can hear sound from all directions, but we usually have only a few speakers around us
        • my use of standard spatialisation techniques (stereophony, binaural, wakefield synthesis)
        • Misc
          • artistic research
          • space is a device
          • sweet spot
          • window
          • display, render, camera
          • fixed media
          • intro
            • ten years ago spoke about sound and space in multimedia installations
            • used these quotes
            • time is a device the prevent everything from happening at one (attributed to Henri Bergson)
            • space is a device that prevents everything from happening in Cambridge
            • in the meantime movement because an issue, of the performing and the listening body, the audience performing the listening (enactive perception)
            • SS > factoids > quotations
            • the world looks different from different positions, this is why movement is important, this is my topic today
            • interactivity as movement in some kind of space, e.g. in real space!
          • will talk about
            • how we think sound and space (spatialisation/choreography)
            • artistic research and how it transformed my practice as a sound artist
            • Zeitraum, a result of CoS
          • start out with a shared experience, first experiment in the lab we are setting up here
            • play to you a piece I did together with Trond Lossius
            • end of August last year Trond and I would talk for 5 days about our practices
            • conversation another pace
          • topics
            • place, becoming one with the place through listening
            • strong memory, also because sharing the experience
            • slowness of experience, as opposed to writing
            • inside/outside, the outside doesn’t stop, infinity of open space, fade out
          • things to get at
            • LISTEN, Raumfaltung, choreographing the audience?
            • artistic research
              • context to work in
                • AR creates a community of peers to exchange ideas with
            • CoS
              • aesthetic lab, Ligeti hall, video of speakers
            • spatialisation
            • space filling texture as paradigm, creates a place, become one with place
            • Among
            • Zeitraum
            • formulations
            • Zeitraum Diagram
        • Intro
          • thank Larry and Diane to have invited me again
            • have been here 10 years ago
            • I remember it as the most enjoyable talk I have given ever
            • because of the very special and inspiring meeting the SoS is
          • got to know Larry? SoS, LISTEN?
          • worked together in the LISTEN project
            • briefly show Raumfaltung?
            • last time talked about sound and space in multimedia installations
            • used 5 pieces to illustrate how I use sound and space in my work
            • today it will only be three, on of which can actually be performed in this setting
            • last time used images and video to introduce you to pieces
            • today attempt to create a laboratory situation here
        • A walk in the woods on a Sunday morning
          • capture the thinking behind an artistic practice: have a conversation about it
          • had many conversations with Trond before
          • context for me to formulate things I cannot formulate in other situations
          • in order to understand certain things about the way I work, I need this resonance from a fellow artist
          • as this was a mutual experience and I was experimenting with different formats of capturing the results of research processes, we teamed up and met for 5 days in Stockholm, had conversations in different situations and recorded them (in my garden, in my office, at the see, in the woods - trying to get a mix of spaces and see, what the spaces provoke us to speak about
          • both composers and sound artists, Trond had done many field recordings recently, sound and space and especially sound and place are very important topics for him
          • want to share this piece with you
          • topics raised: role of the microphone, special state of listening, understanding the world through listening, place making, becoming one with place through listening, how to experience things in time, quality of the outside, infinity of the outside, it is just an image that is put up in front of view, technical gesture fading it out, explain what the StiffNeck is, staged but unscripted conversation, space vs. place, spat comes with baggage, to render something you need to know what it is, loosing control, as artist and audience, Eno quote, boats
          • This was “A walk in the woods on a Sunday morning” by Trond Lossius and me, having a conversation about how our practices as sound artists relate.
          • Wanted to share this with you because it is about the only work I can perform in a situation like the one we are in here, over such a loudspeaker setup. Most of my other works are installations, which are usually extremely site-specific, especially from an acoustic point of view.

Transpositions 2

Notes on antrag

  • finances. missing percentage on pirro

  • For Theo’s fee, in the comments it currently says: "A further 15000 will be acquired in Norway to create those 20% postdoc salary.” I think there has to be a mention of this somewhere since otherwise reviewers might question the 20%. How to deal with this?

    yes, you need to comment this in the text section above the table. "Prof. Theodor Barth will commit 20% of his time to the project: his salary will be budgeted in this project (75%): the remaining 25% (15000 Euro) will be acquired in Norway…" or something. Maybe indicate which fund? (e.g. Norwegian FWF)

  • I realise that the application does not reference the ‘expanded field’ promised in the project subtitle. Should I drop the subtitle? Do I need to discuss and reference it?

    Yes, I think you do need to discuss if you use it. I personally like the "expanded field". I do think you need to say what you mean by expended field: that can be also very short, no need for big discussions. For instance in the introduction, page 4 point 14:

    "Other than Transpositions, however, it will engage with any generative process and not just those related to the use of data…"

    Could be:

    "Other than Transpositions, however, it will engage with the expanded field of any generative process and not just those related to the use of data …"

Artificial Life – Dr. David Pirro, project team

A study into the aesthetic dimensions which are implied in the scientific modelling of biological life, intelligence, evolution and ecological complexity with computational means.

computational

Artificial Life laboratory http://zool33.uni-graz.at/artlife/

Computation and Complexity – Dr. David Pirro, project team

An inquiry into the aesthetico-epistemic operators at work in the research about the essential interplay of computation and complexity in contemporary theoretical computer sciences.

Institute of Theoretical Computer Science, Technical University Graz https://www.tugraz.at/institutes/igi/home/

Contribution

David Pirrò contribution stems from his capacity to bridge technical-scientific and artistic practices. Pirrò is a sound artist and researcher graduated in both Theoretical Physics and Computer Music: he currently works at the Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics (IEM) in Graz. In his work the computational modelling of dynamical systems is the central intersection field between the technological-scientific and the aesthetic perspectives: a position where those perspectives mix, diffract and interact. During the past years he has developed a practice of reading the scientific study of the complex systems through an aesthetic lens and conversely probe artistic practice with the scientific understanding of complexity and emergence. In particular, he has was part of the previous Transposition project, where he has significantly contributed to the development of the dynamical systems perspective. More recently, as principal investigator in the FWF PEEK Project "Algorithms That Matter" (2017–2020, PEEK AR 403-GBL) he has been researching the complexity of interactions between the artistic practice sound art and the computational processes involved in its production.

Complexity

Complexity has risen in the past years one of the most important research field spanning across multiple scientific fields, as the appearance of multiple research organisations proves e.g. the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (https://www.csh.ac.at) (founded 2015) to name one. Yet the term Complexity still seems to escape a clear scientific definition: generally, the concept is been conveyed through example and is therefore characterised differently in each field. A very loose description that may fit in most cases could be the study of the phenomena arising from a set of mutually interacting objects.

When tracing back the origins what is nowadays called complexity science, one may see how it is deeply rooted in the work of specifically one mathematician and philosopher: Henri Poincaré. In particular, in his study of the well-known "three-body problem" (cite), he formulated the existence of a "deterministic unpredictability" lying at the heart of systems of interacting objects. With deterministic unpredictability he expressed that systems may be clearly stated, formulated in simple mathematical terms even analysed in its parts and yet be non solvable, non predictable: they cannot be fully represented.

What is central is that deterministic unpredictability is not the effect of some kind of "ignorance" or missing comprehension of the observer, but an incompressible quality of the world: it is essential to those systems and cannot be eliminated by scientific or technological advance, never. At least, not with the thought models we have. Deterministic unpredictability is a disturbing oxymoron, a crucial concept that would shake the grounds of any positivistic stance; a concept which gave birth to chaos theory and the study of dynamical systems, that have been from then on (and will be) the hardest and central in all science. It is a hard problem because it initiates a "cut" through concepts which still nowadays are considered intimately tied: determination is not equal to prediction, formulation is not equal representation, analysis is not equal to comprehension etc. A cut that has been deepened by the Quantum Mechanics first and then the advent non-linear dynamics after, i.e. the study of systems like the weather or assemblages of neurons. A cut that requires a change of the thought models with which we encounter the world.

Non-linear dynamics has definitely tied the study of complex systems to computation. Many (more or less simultaneous) departure points may be found for non-linear dynamics, but one work which best exemplifies the connection with computation is the so-called "Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou" experiment (cite). In this experiment, done 1953 using one of the first digital computers at the Los Alamos Laboratories, a simple (meaning fomrulated in simple mathematical terms) "string" modelled by a set of masses interacting with each other through a slightly non-linear force was simulated.

This experiment is important for a few reasons. First, it was the first "computational experiment" that is the first case in which an experiment was performed on a computer: it is not a simple simulation, but a computational process that was set in motion in order to produce insights on clear scientific questions. One may well say that this experiment inaugurated what is nowadays known as the "third way" of doing (physical) research besides the theoretical and the experimental.

The second reasons lies in the motivation of the authors. That system of masses was known to exhibit all the qualities Poincaré formulated 60 years before. That system can be clearly formulated, but cannot be solved: we don't have the mathematical tools to formulate a "solution", that is a form that represents the behaviour of the system for all times. But, it can be simulated. The idea of the scientists was to operate a "reduction" and an "immersion": they reduced their envisioned result to an observation of the system's behaviour given a chosen particular starting point and for a chosen span of time. And they devised an algorithm that, given the system's state, would compute the state at the time "immediately" after. That is, they understood that the only possibility they had to look into that complex system was to perform it, in some way "be" with it and refrain to global or general statements.

What Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou found in performing the experiment was crucial for non-linear dynamicas, chaos theory and the study of complexity. But, more than the particular results, it is their method, the perspective they adopted that so greatly influenced computational and complexity sciences.

The upswing complexity sciences have received in the past years is definitely related to the renewed interest in the topics of artificial intelligence, machine learning and data science. In all these fields, neural networks, classical examples of non-linear dynamical systems, the simulation of their behaviours, is a central topic and a tool. But, given the strong technological narratives flowing in and under complexity science, those of analysis, extraction of information, and social, political, ecological control, one may ask: How do these relate to the aesthetico-epistemic dimensions of Poincarè's and Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou which are its origins? Complexity science might from this perspective seen as itself a entangled plexus of diverse aesthetico-epistemic operators in tension.

H. Poincaré, Sur le problème des trois corps et les ´equations de la dynamique, Acta Mathematica 13, 1890, p. 1-270.

E. Fermi, J. Pasta, S. Ulam and M. Tsingou, Studies of nonlinear problems I. Los Alamos preprint LA-1940 (7 November 1955)

Transpositions

Reconfigurations

Videoinstallation

Gerhard Eckel, David Pirrò, Michael Schwab

2016

Reconfigurations is a transposition of neuronal activity patterns created in a super-computer simulation of memory processes in the brain. In the particular simulation used for Reconfigurations, the neurons reactivated memorised patterns spontaniously, i.e. without external stimulus, which provoked our curiosity. The neurons were grouped in 81 cortical modules and the correlation of the activities among all these groups have been calculated, forming a high-dimensional space. By means of a dynamical system this space has been projected onto 2 dimensions. Each point moving on the resulting plane corresponds to the activities of one group of neurons. The distances between the points are related to the correlations between the activities of the respective cortical modules. Points closer to each other show a higher correlation than points further apart. The visible behaviour of the points is the result of two dynamical systems: one that creates the behaviour of the neuronal network and the other one trying to negotiate the ever changing degree of correlation between the activities of the neuronal modules. In its attempt to reduce the complexity of the high-dimensional space to a plane, Reconfigurations reduces the spatial complexity at the expense of introducing temporal complexity.

Excerpt

Transpositions: Data Rush

Not Exposition

Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab, Artemi-Maria Gioti, David Pirrò

Angewandte Innovation Lab (AIL), Vienna, 2016

DA TA rush was a transposition, not an exhibition. It engaged with artificial neural networks, brain activity, architectural mapping, motion capture, galaxy cluster surveys and modelling, particle physics, dynamical systems simulations, room impulse response measurements, air flow turbulences, and sonic textures. The transposition investigated emergent formal and perceptual relationships between data events distributed across the gallery. A set of triggers excited a dynamic system, which articulated and integrated what was performed in DA TA rush. DA TA rush asked if it is possible to liberate data from its representational duties. It enacted data as an imaginary, lived body between the various material elements, human bodies included. How does data pass from one form to another? Are there artistic forms capable of associating what seems highly diverse?

Web page

Video Walk-through

Video Documentation

The Illusion of Simultaneity

Sound Installation

Gerhard Eckel, David Pirrò, Martin Rumori

The idea of someone on the other side of the globe doing something at the very same time as somebody else is doing something here and now relies on a certain notion of simultaneity. Such a notion most likely did not exist before Standard Time had been established only about a century ago. Global synchronisation at ever greater precision is required for global navigation, travel, and communication. But can there be an actual experience of simultaneity or does it remain an abstract idea? The installation The Illusion of Simultaneity explores this question. It has been created for the research event Transpositions: From science to art (and back) which took place October 4-6 2017 in Stockholm / Sweden. Acoustic signals were generated by reactive sound sculptures at each of the five Stockholm venues of the event. Simultaneously, five sculptures were gathered in one room at a central location where they interacted more directly, forming a local dynamical system. The question posed to the audience then was: "Will you allow your experience to construct a network spanning the city of Stockholm?". A transposition of the installation has been presented at the research event Exploring Formants, Enhancing Practice in Graz.

13'28'' in Transpositions: From science to art (and back)

Complexity and Complication

Live-Elektronik Koncert-Installation

Gerhard Eckel, Luc Derycke, David Pirrò, Martin Rumori

Stockholm (Sweden) 2017 and Graz (Austria) 2018

cac_martin.jpg

Data analysis is about turning information into understanding and knowledge. Scientists use a large array of powerful tools to filter, sort, cluster, correlate, and contextualise data. Generally, they aim at reducing complexity which is considered an obstacle for the extraction of information, on the path towards knowledge. Artistic data exploration as practiced in the project Transpositions does not aim at reducing but at embracing complexity, and uses it as an instrument to search for the boundary regions between understanding and sensual experience. By having a complex body of data encounter a complex system of exploration designed according to aesthetic criteria, usually a situation is generated which retains (and maybe augments) complexity rather than diminishing it. The goal is not to answer existing questions or solving known problems but to generate new ones gaining different perspectives on the data, which would be otherwise out of reach. Complexity and Complication is a concert installation performed by Gerhard Eckel, David Pirrò, and Martin Rumori using the DA TA catalogue to aurally explore data from molecular biosciences, computational neuroscience, particle physics, and cosmology.

Trailer

Complete Recording

Constructing transpositons

DONE Answer Gerhard and Michael

Michael

Hallo Gerhard & David,

mir wuerde es helfen, wenn wir schon einmal anfangen koennten (1) ueber die wissenschaftlichen Partner zu sprechen und (2) Raummodelle - und transformationen zu sammeln.

David, zu (2), faellt dir dazu was ein? Ohne viel davon zu verstehen, fallen mir Stichworte wir `Raumzeit', `Phasespace' ein, aber auch `Morphometrie' ein, wo man scheint's ueber Raumtransformationen Verwandtschaften feststellen kann: http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/kunkel/shape.html

Kurz, gibt es Moeglichkeiten, mein Nicht/Kaum/Un-Wissen zu struktutrieren anzufangen?

Vielen Dank!

Michael

David

Lieber Michael, Lieber Gerhard,

Entschuldigt die verspätete Antwort.

Ja da fällt mir schon ein bisschen was ein. Ob ich der lage bin Wissen zu strukturieren weiss ich nicht, aber ich kann damit anfangen über diese Räume die Du hier erwähnst zu reden (ohne mathematisch zu werden), und nachzudenken. Um mir auch selber ine Bild davon zu machen. Ich hoffe das hilft. Ist zumindest ein Anfang.

Wie immer, ist mein schriftliches Deutch sehr dürftig… Ich hoffe ich schaffe es trotzdem klar zu sein uach wenn ich dies hier sehr schnell geschrieben habe, Aber das ist ja nur für uns, richtig?

"Raumzeit", auch Minkowski Raum genannt, ist ein konzept der, wir Ihr schon sicher wisst, von Einstein's spezielle Relativitäts Theorie berümt gemacht worde. Wesentlich ist es das die Raumzeit im mathematischen Sinne ein Raum ist was nicht nur Raum (hier als der drei dimensionale Euklidische Raum das wir üblicherweise benutzen um positionen von Objekten zu nennen) und Zeit irgendwie zusamment fasst oder vereint. Viel mehr, der Minkowski Raum "stellt sicher" das diese Vereinigung physiklischen Sinn hat.

Ok, hier sind schon ein paar wichtige Punkte die vielleicht an diesen Punkt wichtig sind sich näher anzuschauen.

  1. "Der Minkowski Raum ist im mathematischen Sinne ein Raum". In der Mathematik und der Physik gibt es sehr viele unterschiedliche Räume mit denen mann agiert. Aber das wesentliche ist immer das ein Raum aus zwei "Zutaten" besteht. Erstens eine Menge von Objekten. z.B. Positionen. Aber das kann alles andere auch sein wie z.B. Funktionen, Transformationen, Dynamischen Systemen, Farben, Energien, Frequenzen. etc, Zweitens, und das ist die richtig wichtige Zutat, eine Struktur. Was man hier als Struktur bezeichnet ist die definition einer mathematischen funktion die es ermöglich Beziehungen zwischen den objekten zu errechnen oder betrachten. Wie genau diese Struktur oder Funktion gebaut ist, und wie Sie sich verhält definiert was das eigentlich für ein Raum ist (und nicht welchen Objekten es beinhaltet).

    Meiner Meinung nach ist das der wichtigste Punkt wenn man über Räume redet.

    Im prinzip geht es um Distanzen. Aus der Struktur qkann man herleiten wie man Distanzen zwischen der Menge von Objekten errechen kann. Die Struktur kann man auch als "Metrik" bezeichen (siehe weiter unten).

  2. "der Minkowski Raum stellt sicher das diese Vereinigung physiklischen Sinn hat". Also, ok, wir haben eine Menge von objekten, im Fall der Relativitätstheorie 3d Positionen + alle Zeitpunkte. Es gibt unzählige (valide) Strukturen die zu diesen Raum (Zeitraum) passen. Es gibt unendlich viele Funktionen mit denen ich eine Metrik für diesen Raum definieren kann. (Übrigens, diese unendliche vielen Funktionen bilden für sich auch einen Raum, aber das ist eine andere Geschichte). Welche wählen? Hier kam Einstein ins spiel und helfte dabei die richtige Struktur zu finden. Einstein selber hat nicht die Raumzeit formalisiert, das kam nach seine theorie, und wurde eben vom Minkowski formalisiert basierend auf Einsteins Überlegungen.

  3. Zu diesen Punkt gehört für mich die Frage: wie kommt man zu eine definition von der Struktur? Das ist eine sehr schwierige und interessante Frage. Ich glaube ich kann zwei "Methoden" entdecken (zumindest in der Physik).

    Es kann bei Physikalischen Überlegungen oder mathematischen Formulierungen einer Theorie zuerst nicht umbedingt mit Räume zu tun hat. Es kommt aber einen Punkt wo etwas ganz bestimmtes passiert, eine Formel gefunden wird das unter anderen Beziehungen zwischen Objekten definiert (was auch nicht immer gleich erkannt wird), und aha! da muss ja wohl einen Raum "dahinter" stecken. Das passier oft in der Physik. Und ist immer ein schönes Moment wenn es passiert (und lehrnt). Räume ermöglichen Dinge und komplexe Vorgänge zusammen zu fassen, bildlich darzustellen und ergendwie "anzufassen".

    Auf den anderen Seite, "von innen", wenn ich vor mir eine Menge von irgenwelchen Objekten vor mir habe, und ich diese Strukturieren will. Das passiert öfter in der Mathematik und ist oft ein schwieriger Prozess nachzuvollziehen. Das sind meisten sehr allgemeine Theorien die dann dabeirauskommen (aber auch sehr schöne).

Zurück zu den Räumen. Die "Raumzeit" von der ich bis jetzt geschrieben habe gehört nur zu einen Teil der gesamnten Relativitäts Theorie. Der zweite Teil, die Allgemeine Relativitäts Theorie, geht einige Schritte weiter, was Räume betrifft. Eigentlich, um deutlicher zu sein, beschäftigt sich diese Theorie wirklich mit der Natur des Physikalischen Raum.

Die Allegemeine Relativität Theorie ist, für mich, einer der schönsten Teile der Physik. Es ist eine mathematische Theorie die ein wunderschönes Formalismus entwickelt das auf Tensoren (mehrdimensionale Matrizen dessen elemente funktionen sind) basiert und dessen Forschungs Gegenstand die Metrik des Raumes ist.

Die wichtigste Aussge der ganzen Theorie ist die Folgende: "Gravitation ist KEINE Kraft. Gravitation ist eine Eigenschaft der RAUMZEIT". So was heisst das? In wenigen Worten. Objekte, dadurch das Sie eine Masse besitzten, krümmen die Raumzeit, wie die Oberfläche eines Betts gekrümmt wird wenn ich eine Bowlingkugel drauf stelle (ein Bild das mittlerweile jeder kennt, oder?). Das andere Objekte auf den Bett von der Bowlingkugel angezogen werden, ist nicht weil die Bowlingkugel eine Kraft auf diese ausübt, sondern veil das Bett gekrümmt ist.

Also die allgemeine Relativitäts Theorie beschäftigt sich mit gekrümmten Raumzeit(en) und dessen Metrik. Was heisst das? Der Minkowski Raum ist "nur" Flach. Das heisst im das die distanzen im ganzen Minkowski Raum mit der gleichen Funktion berechnet werden können unabhänging davon zwischen welche Punkte ich die Distanz berechne. Das ist dan nichmehr so in der gekrümmten Raumzeit. Wie man Distanzen errechnet (das sagt mir die Metrik), ändert sich über den Raum. An jeden Punkt ändert sich die Metrik. Wie sich die Metrik ändert ist die Frage die dies Theorie versucht zu beantworten.

Jetzt zu anderen Räume die mich persönlich auch sehr interessieren. Diese zwei haben was mit einander zu tun denn sie befassen sich mit Dynamische Systeme. Es sind der "Konfigurations Raum" und der "Phasen Raum".

Als erstes der sogenannte "Konfigurations Raum".

Nehmen wir einen mechanischen (oder dynamischen) System. Alle parameter die die Konfigurationen dieses System bescheiben und identifizieren können, bilden die Achsen eines Raumes, den Konfigurations Raum.

Diese Parameter sind auch generalisierte coordinaten genannt. Das sind z.B. für eine sich frei bewengende Masse im Weltraum wären diese paramter die x, y, z coordinaten. Für ein Pendel hingengen wären diese paramter die der Winkel des Pendels. Im ersten Fall ist die Konfiguration der Masse die normale 3d position und der Konfigurations Raum der normale Euklidische Raum. Im zweiten Fall ist es was anderes, ein 1d Raum der eingentlich in sich selbst geschlossen ist (da 2Pi = 0: es ist eigentlich ein Kreis). Oft müssen natürlich diese Paramter einige Beschränkungen (constraints) erfüllen: in diesen Fall ist der KonfigurationsRaum des System nur ein Subraum des ganzen. z.B. ist die masse gebunden auf eine Sphäre sich zu bewegen dann ist der Konfigurations Raum diese Sphäre im 3d Raum

Wichtig ist das diese Konfigurationen NICHT die sg. Zustände des Systems sind. Konfigurationen sagen nichts darüber aus über Energie oder das Zeitliche Verhalten des Objekts oder des Systems aus. Der Zustand eines System oder Objekt beinhaltet aber diese Information.

Wichtiger Punkt hier: In den meisten Fällen in der Physik geht es eigentlich "nur" um eines: Energie. Wenn man weiss wie die Energie eines Systems sich "verhält" (i.e. sich über die Zeit verändert, oder nicht, welche "Struktur" Sie hat), dan hat man das Systems "verstanden" und man kann es beschreiben.

Im allgemein ist die Energie (von ein System, von ein Objekt) eine Funktion von dessen generalisierten Coordinaten ( ~ die Position) und den Impuls ("momentum" auf english, ~ die Geschwindigkeit). Der Zustand eines Systems beinhaltet Information über sowohl Positionen als auch Geschwindigkeiten es ist ein Vektor der aus alle generalisieren Koordinated eines Sysyems und die dazugehörigen Impulse. Zustand und Energie sind also eng "verwandt" (sind manchmal, speziell in der Quanten Mechanik, so benutzt als ob sie ds gleiche wären).

Zustände sind also viel interessanter als Konfigurationen. Wie man schon vermutet, gibt es ein Zustands Raum (State space) und diese art von Räume (zustands Räume) sind die am meisten benutzten und studierten Räume in der Physik (die ganze Quanten Mechanik wie die Teilchen Physik oder Festkörrper Physik besteht eigentlich ausschliesslich aus den Studium dieser Räume).

In der Klassischen Mechanik und in der Theorie der Dynamischen Systeme, ist der Zustand ein Vektor der alle Generalisiertne Koordinate und Impulse beinhaltet. Also im Fall unsere sich fei bewegende Masse im Weltraum besteht dieser Vektor aus 6 einträgen (x,y,z,px,py,pz) und der Zustands Raum (= die Menge alle Zustände) ist in diesen Fall 6 dimensional. Im Fall des Pendels wäre der Raum 2 dimensional (winkel,winkelImpuls) und ist eigentlich ein Zylinder da eine Dimension in Kreis ist. Die Art des Zustands Raum hängt also mit den spezillen System ab den man gerade betrachtet.

So, und jetzt machen wir den letzten Schritt und kommen endlich zum Phasen Raum.

Bis jetzt ist der Zustands Raum das wir betrachtet haben ziemlich "nackt". Es ist nur ein leerer Raum. Aber so ist es nicht. Betrachten wir ein Punkt in den Zustands Raum, also ein Zustand von den speziellen Dynamischen System. Und jetzt machen wir die Zeit "an". Die Zeit hatten wir bis jetzt nicht in betracht gezogen (naja irgenwie ist die Zeit in den Impuls drinnen aber nicht explizit). Jetzt kommt Sie wieder im Vordergrund denn es geht hier um Dynamischen Systeme und diese sind von Differential Gleichungen beschrieben die uns sagen wie ein der Zustand eines System über die Zeit sich entwickelt. Also wir werden sehen wie der Zustand des Systems sich im Zustands Raum "bewegt" und eine Trajektorie zeichet die wir "Phasen Portrait" nennen.

Wenn der Zustands Raum zu einen Dynamischen System "gehört" was von Differential Gleichungen Beschrieben ist, dann kann man von jeden Punkt im Zustands Raum solche Phasen Portraits zeichnen und so wird der Zustands Raum zum Phasen Raum.

Diese Phasen strukturiern den Raum. Wenn mann betrachtet wie sich diesen in den Raum verhalten, wo Sie sich hinbewegen oder wegbewegen, welche struckturen Sie Zeichnen, ob es Attraktoren oder Repulsoren oder grenz Linien oder Flächen die die Phasen Trajektorien anziehen oder wegschieben, kann man sehr viel über den Dynamischen System im allgemein sagen.

Im allgemein sind solche Dynamischen Systeme unlösbar. Nicht nur "schwierig" sondern wirklich mathematisch unlösbar. Was man aber machen immer machen kann ist den Phasen Raum eines Dynamischen System zu studieren: man wählt ein oder mehrer Anfangs Punkte (= Anfangs Zustände) und lässt diese dann deren Trajektorien zeichen. Mann kann dann dadurch verstehen (oder versuche zu verstehen) was für eine "Struktur" sich in den Raum versteckt.

Wichtig: Der Phasen Raum ist nicht "nur" eine (anschauliche ) Representation des Dynamischen Systems. Nein, der Phasen Raum, mit dessen geometrischen Strukturen, IST das Dynamische System. Die Formulierung durch Differential Gleichungen und die Geometrie des Phasen Raums sind Isomorph also gleichwertig.

Ich habe ein schönes Buch zu diese Thema gefunden, dort sind viele Beispiele drin. Ich finde es interessant da es ausschlieslich mit visuellen Mitteln und ohne Mathematik versucht die Theorie der Dynamischen Systeme und Phase Räume zu erklären. Ich habe es für euch hier zum runderladen hingestellt (ist ziemlich groß da es eben fast nur aus Zeichnungen besteht): http://iem.at/~pirro/book.zip

Kurz noch zu den Räumen in der Quanten Mechanik. Ich hoffe ich kann es bisschen klarer machen was hier passiert (und das ist ziemlich schwierig…) Wie ich schon sagte, geht es hier nur um Zustands Räume. Nur ist her die Situation komplizierter denn Zustände sind nicht nur "Punkte" in einen Raum, das sind Funktionen. Also im Phasen Raum wie wir es bis jetzt betrachtet haben ist ein Zustand ein Vektor aus 2*n Einträge. Es ist kein einzelner Wert aber es ist "fix". In der Quanten Mechanik ist ein Zustand nichts "fixes" in diesen Sinne. Es ist eine Funktion die beschreibt wie sich das System im ganzen Raum verhält (oder verhalten würde wenn es diesen Zutand hätte). Vielleicht kann man sagen das jeder diese Funktionen einen eigenen Phasen Raum beschreibt. Das wunderbare ist aber das sich diese Funktionen sich untereinander so verhalten als ob Sie Punkte oder Vektoren wären in einen Euklidischen Raum: man kann sie multiplizieren, den Betrag ausrechnen, Projezieren etc. Sie haben also eine Struktur die es ermöglicht Sie als Raum zu betrachten, den Hillbert Raum.

Ich hoffe ich habe auch die Ideee nicht allzu verwirrt…

Über "Morphometrien" weiss ich leider nicht viel, aber diese Transformationen sehen ein bisschen so aus wie gekümmte Raumzeit(en)…. :)

Ich hoffe das hilft ein bisschen?

Besten Gruß.

David

2014 03 18, David & Gerhard, MUMUTH

  • Zeitraum Variationen
  • Modus der Zusammenarbeit
    • Balance zwischen aufgetragener und selbstbestimmter Arbeit
    • BA variabel halten, anpassen an Davids andere Arbeit
    • eigene (Davids) Forschungsinteressen müssen einen zentralen Platz haben können
    • Offenheit schaffen, in der alle Aspekte der Zusammenarbeit adressiert werden können
    • man muß immer sagen können, wenn einem etwas zu viel ist
    • wir müssen unsere Erwartungen austauschen
  • Zeitraum als Ausgangspunkt für TP
    • Synergie mit Klangräume, CoS
    • Parcours
      • 33 Snaredrums, Clicktrack, Notation, dirigieren?
      • (Metronomsteuerung Musil, Peter Jakober, Steirischer Herbst, Bläserstück)
      • Tänzer klatschen lassen
      • David Idee: Zikaden, versuchen sich zu synchronisieren
      • David: Aufträge für Reaktion auf Zeitraum, Konferenz, Call, peer review, Form kann man frei wählen
      • David: Stück mit klatschenden Menschen, die versuchen sollen, zusammen zu Klatschen
      • Zeitraum durch Menschen aufführen lassen, MusikerInnen kompensieren automatisch
    • wie mit den "Erkenntnissen" von Zeitraum systhematisch komponieren (geometrisch)
    • scheint immer um Raum zu gehen, wieso?
    • Raum, Zeit, Bewegung, Geschwindigkeit, Energie
    • Veränderung ist die Basis für Wahrnehmung (von Räumen)
    • MUMUTH in the box
    • Variationen, performance GUI, Parameterräume,
    • Zeitraum als Vehikel um über Phasenräume / Modelle ins Gespräch zu kommen
    • Unmöglichkeit oder Inexistenz von Gleichzeitigkeit
    • was ist Zeitraum eigentlich? Prisma
    • Daten einfach in den Zeitraum werfen
    • den Parameterraum so weit wie möglich ausweiten, besonders für das spielerische Explorieren wichtig
    • side effects of chosen representation may become important (e.g. Zeitraum diagram)
    • Entsprechung zwischen Zeitraum und Michaels Algorithmus
    • Sonifikation von Michaels Algorithmus

Kickoff

  1. Get the data into Rhino Transbody or Rebody data into Rhino Develop infrastructure for the project Three elements:
    • Data analyse
    • Supercollider
    • Rhino points lines planes curves splines
    • Data into Rhino at first only static, OSC interface is not necessary now.
    • Rhino only as production tool
  2. Data sets
    • EGM
      • Rebody
      • Transbody
    • EEG
    • Grifftabellen
    • Tremor
    • QED
  1. Interaction
  2. Composition with abstract objects
  3. Rhino phase space

Meetings

Michael, Skype

<2020-03-19 Thu 15:00>–<2020-03-19 Thu 16:00>

Michael, Skype

<2020-02-18 Tue 15:00>–<2020-02-18 Tue 16:00>

Inflatable transport iem

<2019-08-07 Wed 09:00>–<2019-08-07 Wed 13:00>

Gerhard Michael, Appear

<2019-07-30 Tue 12:00>–<2019-07-30 Tue 13:00>

Gerhard Michael, Appear

<2019-06-12 Wed 11:00>–<2019-06-12 Wed 12:00>

Gerhard, Tracking CUBE

<2018-12-11 Tue 14:00>–<2018-12-11 Tue 19:00>

EFEP Nachlese Gerhard, Martin, Andreas

<2018-11-07 Wed 09:00>–<2018-11-07 Wed 10:30>

Gerhard, Tracking CUBE ??

<2018-11-08 Thu 10:00>–<2018-11-08 Thu 20:00>

Gerhard, Tracking, CUBE

<2018-11-09 Fri 15:00>–<2018-11-09 Fri 22:00>

Gerhard, appear

<2018-10-18 Thu 10:30>–<2018-10-18 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-06-26 Tue 15:00>–<2018-06-26 Tue 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-06-20 Wed 11:00>–<2018-06-20 Wed 13:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Appear

<2018-05-18 Fri 10:30>–<2018-05-18 Fri 11:30>

TP, Science by ear 2018

Gerhard, Abendessen

<2018-04-18 Wed 20:00>–<2018-04-18 Wed 22:00>

Gerhard, Michael Genetics

<2018-05-08 Tue 14:30>–<2018-05-08 Tue 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael Appear

<2018-04-03 Tue 14:00>–<2018-04-03 Tue 15:00>

  • Font problem

Gerhard, Martin

<2018-04-13 Fri 13:00>–<2018-04-13 Fri 14:00>

Gerhard, TP

<2018-03-09 Fri 18:00>–<2018-03-09 Fri 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Martin, Skype

<2017-12-06 Wed 10:15>–<2017-12-06 Wed 11:45>

Gerhard, Michael, Pelin, skype

<2017-12-18 Mon 11:00>–<2017-12-18 Mon 12:30>

Gerhard, lunch

<2017-10-20 Fri 12:00>–<2017-10-20 Fri 13:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-07-17 Mon 15:00>–<2017-07-17 Mon 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael

<2017-07-10 Mon 16:00>–<2017-07-10 Mon 18:00>

Gerhard, Michele, Jackfield

<2017-06-29 Thu 10:30>–<2017-06-29 Thu 11:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-28 Wed 10:15>–<2017-06-28 Wed 11:45>

Gerhard, TP, Diss

<2017-06-21 Wed 12:00>–<2017-06-21 Wed 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-22 Thu 15:00>–<2017-06-22 Thu 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Phoebe, Skype

<2017-07-04 Tue 16:00>–<2017-07-04 Tue 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-06-13 Tue 15:00>–<2017-06-13 Tue 16:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-05-03 Wed 22:00>–<2017-05-03 Wed 23:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-04-18 Tue 10:00>–<2017-04-18 Tue 11:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-04-04 Tue 09:00>–<2017-04-04 Tue 10:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-03-24 Fri 15:00>–<2017-03-24 Fri 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-28 Tue 10:30>–<2017-02-28 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype Catalogue

<2017-03-06 Mon 14:00>–<2017-03-06 Mon 15:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-23 Thu 10:30>–<2017-02-23 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-10 Fri 10:30>–<2017-02-10 Fri 12:00>

Gerhard, Exhibition Stockholm

<2017-01-19 Thu 11:30>–<2017-01-19 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2017-02-03 Fri 11:00>–<2017-02-03 Fri 12:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype ??

<2016-12-06 Tue 16:00>–<2016-12-06 Tue 17:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-12-15 Thu 16:00>–<2016-12-15 Thu 17:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-29 Tue 10:30>–<2016-11-29 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-15 Tue 14:00>–<2016-11-15 Tue 15:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-11-03 Thu 13:00>–<2016-11-03 Thu 14:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-10-19 Wed 11:30>–<2016-10-19 Wed 12:00>

Presentation TP, Barcelona?

<2016-11-17 Thu 19:00>

  • Text Michael

    Transpositions [TP]. Artistic Data Exploration

    Funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Transpositions [TP] investigates the possibility of generating new auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and mathematical transformation of scientific data. The project also asks whether and how these new forms are of scientific significance by challenging the collaborating researchers to scientifically engage with the artistic outputs. In this context, ‘transposition’ is understood as data transformations whose frames of reference may appear arbitrary since they include the aesthetic qualities of the results. While this approach is partial and unscientific, its outcomes may nevertheless be of relevance, if by ‘relevance’ we do not only understand scientific discoveries but also new modes of imagining data and an enriched research culture.

    COMPASS is the scientific partner for TP’s second case study. The other case studies focus on artificial neuronal networks (completed), cosmology and DNA interactions (both in progress).

    The presentation will introduce the research project and show examples of the work to date in order to communicate its transpositional approach to data and the particular relationship between the arts and the sciences that we propose.

    In discussing our work-in-progress we also hope to receive feedback that can helps us to further develop the case study.

  • Text David

    Transpositions [TP]. Artistic Data Exploration

    Funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Transpositions [TP] investigates the possibility of generating new auditory and visual forms based on transformations of scientific data. The project also asks whether and how these new forms are of scientific significance by challenging the collaborating researchers to engage with the artistic outputs. A ‘transposition’ is understood as data transformations whose frames of reference may appear arbitrary since they include the aesthetic qualities of the results. While this approach is partial and unscientific, its outcomes may nevertheless be of relevance, if by ‘relevance’ we do not only understand scientific discoveries but also new modes of imagining data and an enriched research culture.

    The presentation will introduce the research project and show examples of the work to date in order to communicate its transpositional approach to data and the particular relationship between the arts and the sciences that we propose.

  • GRZ -> BCN

    <2016-11-17 Thu 06:15>–<2016-11-17 Thu 10:40>

  • BCN -> GRZ

    <2016-11-19 Sat 08:50>–<2016-11-19 Sat 12:50>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-09-22 Thu 11:00>–<2016-09-22 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-10-07 Fri 11:00>–<2016-10-07 Fri 12:30>

Gerhard, COMPASS, iem

<2016-09-19 Mon 16:00>–<2016-09-19 Mon 19:00>

TP Minoriten

<2016-11-12 Sat>

  1. Neuro Video
  2. Loudspeaker Installation
  • Text

    In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich eine Form der Forschung etabliert, deren zentrale Methode die künstlerische Praxis ist. Diese künstlerische Forschung eröffnet uns einen neuen Blick auf unsere Welt und ihre Phänomene. Durch ihren Fokus auf die Gestaltung ästhetischer Erfahrung erlaubt künstlerische Praxis Strukturen offen zu legen, deren man sich mit anderen Methoden nur schwer gewahr werden kann. Eine grundlegend kritische Position gegenüber künstlerischer Praxis und ihrer Kontexte ist dafür Voraussetzung. Spezifisch für künstlerische Forschung ist, dass die sinnliche Erfahrung ein primäres Mittel ist, aus dem Erkenntnis hervorgebracht und durch das diese auch mitgeteilt wird. Das Erleben der Kunst ist von zentraler Bedeutung für die Forschenden und deren Publikum, das so auch Teil des Forschungsprozesses werden kann. Mit “Trans” präsentieren wir Werke, die im Kontext künstlerischer Forschungsprojekte entstanden sind.

TP, Barcelona

<2016-11-17 Thu>–<2016-11-19 Sat>

Gerhard, TP Stockholm

<2016-12-15 Thu>–<2016-12-18 Sun>

  • GRZ -> ARN

    <2016-12-15 Thu 06:15>–<2016-12-15 Thu 11:30>

  • ARN -> GRZ

    <2016-12-19 Mon 18:25>–<2016-12-19 Mon 22:55>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-07-26 Tue 22:00>–<2016-07-26 Tue 23:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-07-19 Tue 15:00>–<2016-07-19 Tue 16:30>

Stockholm, TP?

<2016-08-22 Mon>–<2016-08-23 Tue>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-06-29 Wed 10:30>–<2016-06-29 Wed 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-06-22 Wed 16:00>–<2016-06-22 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2016-06-14 Tue 14:00>–<2016-06-14 Tue 15:30>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-05-03 Tue 10:00>–<2016-05-03 Tue 12:00>

Ritonja

<2016-04-26 Tue 15:00>–<2016-04-26 Tue 16:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-04-13 Wed 14:00>–<2016-04-13 Wed 15:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-04-22 Fri 14:00>–<2016-04-22 Fri 15:00>

Michael, Skype?

<2016-03-10 Thu 11:00>–<2016-03-10 Thu 12:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-03-03 Thu 11:00>–<2016-03-03 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, IEM

<2016-03-04 Fri 15:00>–<2016-03-04 Fri 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-02-16 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-16 Tue 11:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-02-04 Thu 11:00>–<2016-02-04 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, skype

<2016-02-02 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-02 Tue 11:00>

Michael, London

<2016-02-23 Tue 10:00>–<2016-02-23 Tue 13:00>

  • DONE Book London flights and hotel
  • DONE Put Dienstreise on Alois!!!

    <2016-02-08 Mon 09:00>–<2016-02-08 Mon 09:30>

  • Graz -> London

    <2016-02-22 Mon 14:25>–<2016-02-22 Mon 17:45>

  • London -> Graz

    <2016-02-24 Wed 11:10>–<2016-02-24 Wed 16:00>

  • DONE Dienstreise London

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2016-01-28 Thu 11:00>–<2016-01-28 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard Michael, Skype

<2016-01-14 Thu 11:00>–<2016-01-14 Thu 12:30>

Gerhard, Michele, CUBE

<2015-12-18 Fri 11:00>–<2015-12-18 Fri 13:00>

Gerhard, COMPASS

<2015-12-10 Thu 14:00>–<2015-12-10 Thu 16:00>

Skizzo, COMPASS

<2015-11-10 Tue 14:00>–<2015-11-10 Tue 15:00>

Transpositions Skype, Astronomie Data??

<2015-12-03 Thu 13:00>–<2015-12-03 Thu 14:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-11-02 Mon 19:00>–<2015-11-02 Mon 20:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-10-21 Wed 12:00>–<2015-10-21 Wed 14:00>

Giulio Skype

<2015-10-19 Mon 19:00>–<2015-10-19 Mon 20:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2015-09-25 Fri 10:00>–<2015-09-25 Fri 11:00>

Gerhard, Skype

<2015-10-01 Thu 11:00>–<2015-10-01 Thu 12:00>

  • DONE Ask for DtV Dates in January for Daniel Minoriten

DARE Conference

<2015-11-09 Mon>–<2015-11-11 Wed>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: d585e5f7-8c34-4a5b-ae3c-70b7c3b8df3c

<2015-08-26 Wed 10:30>–<2015-08-26 Wed 12:00>

  1. Book
  2. RC
  3. Case Study 2

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: ab142bd5-2699-4628-8c42-81586df89759

<2015-09-09 Wed 13:00>–<2015-09-09 Wed 14:30>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: 9da5887e-08de-4914-9a77-09f10cb6519d

<2015-09-23 Wed 10:30>–<2015-09-23 Wed 12:20>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-10-07 Wed 10:30>–<2015-10-07 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Giulio, Graz??

<2015-10-24 Sat>–<2015-10-25 Sun>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-11-03 Tue 10:30>–<2015-11-03 Tue 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-11-18 Wed 10:00>–<2015-11-18 Wed 11:30>

Michael Gerhard, Wien

<2015-11-27 Fri>

  • Gerhard -> wien

    <2015-11-27 Fri 13:30>

  • Meeting for Space

    <2015-11-27 Fri 17:30>

Philosophy an Stage no.4 Conference

Paolo, Michael, Tanzquartier <2015-11-28 Sat 20:30>

Michael, Gerhard, Dynamical Systems, Skype

<2015-12-02 Wed 10:30>–<2015-12-02 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

<2015-12-16 Wed 10:30>–<2015-12-16 Wed 12:00>

Michael, Gerhard, Skype

:ID: 8b28bd69-a143-48da-9b1c-6e5402bbc7e0

<2015-04-28 Tue 10:00>–<2015-04-28 Tue 12:00>

Michael Skype

<2015-04-22 Wed 15:00>–<2015-04-22 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

:ID: 5726a4a0-d5c9-43b3-bf0f-2e12a1836b01

<2015-04-21 Tue 10:30>–<2015-04-21 Tue 11:30>

Michael Skype

:ID: 55a2fd9e-2b00-4042-b1e8-2c84f7bbce79

<2015-01-20 Tue 16:30>–<2015-01-20 Tue 17:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype ?

<2015-03-06 Fri 13:00>–<2015-03-06 Fri 14:30>

Luc, Skype

<2014-12-10 Wed 18:00>–<2014-12-10 Wed 19:00>

Gerhard, Michael, Skype

<2015-05-06 Wed 15:00>–<2015-05-06 Wed 16:00>

Gerhard, Michale, Skype

<2015-05-06 Wed 17:00>

Gerhard, Transpositions

<2015-05-06 Wed 09:00>–<2015-05-06 Wed 18:00>

Michael, Digital Abstraction, Bremen

<2015-05-06 Wed>–<2015-05-09 Sat>

Gerhard, Spikes

<2014-12-08 Mon 15:00>–<2014-12-08 Mon 17:00>

Gerhard, IEM

<2014-10-20 Mon 14:30>

Graz, Michael, Gerhard

<2015-01-17 Sat>–<2015-01-18 Sun>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: ce2ce48d-3a2f-4969-9763-e113842e55fc

<2015-01-09 Fri 13:00>–<2015-01-09 Fri 15:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2015-01-29 Thu 13:00>–<2015-01-29 Thu 14:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: 5067d4ac-0ef8-4668-a1b2-9f868573aa4d

<2015-02-10 Tue 09:00>–<2015-02-10 Tue 18:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: 0cf43cc3-6dd5-4c1d-b1f8-ba2142b6fbb6

<2015-02-25 Wed 13:00>–<2015-02-25 Wed 14:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

:ID: b3063d5e-25f2-4d99-b563-21c3266a8f2b

<2015-03-11 Wed 10:00>–<2015-03-11 Wed 13:00>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-09-24 Wed 12:00>–<2014-09-24 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-10-08 Wed 12:00>–<2014-10-08 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-10-21 Tue 14:00>–<2014-10-21 Tue 15:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-11-05 Wed 12:00>–<2014-11-05 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-11-17 Mon 14:00>–<2014-11-17 Mon 15:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-12-03 Wed 12:00>–<2014-12-03 Wed 13:30>

Skype, Gerhard, Michael

<2014-12-18 Thu 14:00>–<2014-12-18 Thu 15:30>

Stockholm, Gerhard, Michael

  • Travel
    • Wien -> Stockholm

      <2014-09-01 Mon 12:55>

    • Stockholm -> Wien

      <2014-09-04 Thu 16:40>

  • Costs
    • flight : 282.19
    • Hotel 276
    • Train 19 x 2
    • Bus 8 x 2

Skype Gerhard

<2014-07-02 Wed 11:00>–<2014-07-02 Wed 13:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-08-04 Mon 21:00>–<2014-08-04 Mon 22:00>

Skype Gerhard

<2014-07-22 Tue 21:00>

TP Stockholm

<2014-09-01 Mon>–<2014-09-04 Thu>

Gerhard Traminer

<2014-12-11 Thu 18:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-03-26 Wed 12:00>–<2014-03-26 Wed 14:00>

Skype Gerhard, Michael

<2014-04-08 Tue 14:30>–<2014-04-08 Tue 16:30>

  • Blender script for 3d visualisierung script for taking an image every 15 degrees
  • Transbody rework on in. collect material an past ideas in the RC
  • AP Wien http://www.kibirooms.at

Gerhard, IEM

<2014-04-07 Mon 15:00>–<2014-04-07 Mon 17:00>

Wien Gerhard, Michael

<2014-06-17 Tue>–<2014-06-18 Wed>

  • Graz -> Wien

    <2014-06-17 Tue 12:25>–<2014-06-17 Tue 13:00>

  • Wien -> Graz

    <2014-06-18 Wed 14:03>–<2014-06-18 Wed 16:33>

TODOs

Transposition installations @ SBE4 2018


  • The Metaboliser is an audio visual work developed in the context of the Artisitc Research project “Transpositions”. During this project data sets extracted four different research contexts have been used:

    • deep inelastic scattering events recorded in particle collision at the COMPASS experiment at CERN
    • neural network simulations run at the Institute of Computational Neuroscience at the KTH in Stockholm
    • data regarding galaxy clustering from the Beecroft Institute of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at University of Oxford
    • genome folding data from the Science for Life Laboratory at the Swedish national center for molecular biosciences.

    These data sets have been used by artists /researchers (Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab and David Pirrò) as molding material for generating new sonic or visual forms. To this end, tools and techniques common in data visualisation and sonification have also been used as operators on the data sets: the chain of transformations is therefore kept mathematically transparent and reproducible. Nevertheless, the aim is not to produce perceptible artefacts with a definite function, namely that of conveying some kind of information about the data. Rather, the intent is to generate audio-visual objects that escape the paradigms of information or representation. Centering on the construction of new aesthetic relations between perceptual qualities of those forms and the material is a means for enacting novel speculative positions about the data.

    The following pages contain a description of some of the ideas that played a role in the development of the Metaboliser. These pages are taken form a text appearing in the Catalogue to the exhibition "Schwärmen Vernetzten" which will by published in 2018.

    The Metaboliser is a process to continuously generates visual and sonic forms according to the state of a evolving dynamical system. The Metaboliser is a computational process that is set to "digest" the data sets it is presented with: the data origin or possible interpretations of its meaning, do not play a role. From the perspective of the metaboliser data is just a collection of numbers organised in some way. These numbers are absorbed by the metaboliser, but sediment in the its very structure modifying the dynamical system at its core changing how the process will evolve.

    There is no isomorphic relation between the visual and auditory metaboliser produces and the data. It is not an analysis tool that finds and displays some qualities of its input. Nevertheless the data co-determines the system's behaviour being radically entangled within the metaboliser's systems.

    What you see and hear is an example of audio visual forms the metaboliser generates.

    process has digested five different data sets: the four mentioned above and the Irish household consumption data used in this workshop.

    The metaboliser does not just develop on its own, it is also influenced by the input it receives. This input can be any kind of data. The metaboliser does not make any difference with respect to its origin, their supposed meaning or interpretations. It just takes the set of numbers it is presented with and "digests" it: this process of "metabolisation" results in modification of the frequency and coupling factors of some elements in the system, depending on the characteristics of the data set, i.e. how many elements it contains and their value. Thus, the metaboliser, takes in and absorbs the data in its very structure: it is modified by it and it future evolution will be affected by every data set that "sediments" into it. In the digestion process the input data completely disappears as a recognisable entity: there is no way to take it out from the system in any way, once it is injected into it. No isomorphic relation exists between the output, the visual and auditory metaboliser produces and its input. It is not an analysis tool that finds and displays some qualities of its input. Any specific form it will produce will be strongly determined by its past inputs. The data will become part of its behaviour and radically entangled within the metaboliser's systems.

    The images you see in this pages, are selected details of some visual traces of the metaboliser's process: the digested data is data from recorded particle collisions at CERN, data of the simulation of neural networks, genome folding interaction data and astrophysical data of the matter distribution in the universe.


  • Rebody by Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab and David Pirrò is a video and an installation piece in which the captured motion of a dancer is transposed into a dynamic drawing that informs a musical composition.The piece explores the dance movements, the drawing algorithms and the musical structures in an attempt to transpose rather than represent the dancer's movements. Rebody is based on motion-capture data collected from Bodyscapes (2009), an intermedial dance solo performance by Valentina Moar(choreography/dance), Gerhard Eckel and David Pirrò (composition).

DONE Skizzo has to sign the TP Stuff!

  • State "WAITING" from "NEXT" [2018-02-12 Mon 11:11]
    waiting for skizzo to send stuff back

Gerhard feedback on new Zeitraum Formulation

Luc git access

Change paths in git sc files

Mails

DONE MUMUTH Keys, Gerhard

List

  • AIL
    • DONE AIL Test and preparations
      1. Acoustic measurements
      2. Measurement of space (Gerhard)
      3. Test of the monitors: Monitor can playback media which is on an USB Stick connected to them. Also, the playback can be controlled from another machine vie wifi. The available controls are: play, stop, pause, next (clip), previous (clip). Only drawback is that when jumping to the next clip in the lower left corner a control menu appears. Not very nice. Maybe this can be avoided by rendering a very long video file and use just the play and pause controls
      4. Tested wifi connectivuty in the Gallery: With the wifi router we have bought it seems that not all of the gallery can be reliably covered, as expected. The wifi extender / access point we have bought seems to work well though, it help in making the situation more stable, especially in the spaces in the basement. We probably should buy more of these
      5. As Gerhard already said, the laser seismograph does not work as we expected. We decided to cancel it and use the piano keyboard (piano should now be in the space towards the major street) to display low frequency vibration picked up by a microphone.
    • DONE Jackfield (for AIL, with Michele)

      Field of 10x10 jack headphone connectors. Plugging the headphones into one of these 100 connectors should trigger the playback of a different sound file. Arduino controlled. Multiplexer CD74HC4051 ahs to be bought in order for the arduino to sense which plug is being used.

    • DONE Arduino Triggers (for AIL, with Michele)

      Build and Test the triggers to send OSC messages via wifi (arduino + ethernet shield -> access point -> wifi -> computer in the network).

    • DONE Prepare SuperCollider code to control CEUS piano:

      Code Prepared with Gerhard didn't work because of lack of information from them. Waiting for the feedback from Vienna about the exact protocol used.

      • DONE set a meeting beginning of march in Vienna to test the

        piano together with Artemis

      • DONE Write Gerhard results
      • DONE Fix date for next time in april
  • Cosmology
    • DONE Apply EEG triangulation algorithm to cosmology data

      Exported as obj files for Rhino

  • Compass
    • DONE Compass CERN data export
    • NEXT Compass data Visual (with Michael)
      • DONE Cleared some questions on the data with Michael
      • NEXT Error "blobs" drawing
        1. Find out which multiple of the standard deviation along X and Y should be used in order for the blobs to at least touch each other.
        2. I asked Giulio about the strange value relations between Vertex Error ad Trajectory error. Waiting for reply.
    • DONE Hits data COMPASS

      Giulio said that after having talked with the CERN code "gurus", it seems possible to reconstruct the hit data from the raw data we have. He will have time next week (Week 9) to do so.

    • DONE Fulled out formular ZS-QU1 from Giulio

      Asked (again and again), waiting for Giulio to send it back

    • DONE 3d Model of Compass Detector

      Asked (again), and waiting

  • Genetics
    • NEXT Genetics data

      Were is the data? Michael asks Gerhard. I would need a description of both the format the data is stored in and consequently a description of Michael's idea. After the meeting in London this last part is more clear, still it is not clear if the data is in a form which allows that "interpretation".

DONE Freistellung Plan Travel + airbnb Stockholm Stockholm!

SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-28 Fri>

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-29 Sat>

  • SAR Conference, Helsinki, Martin

    <2017-04-30 Sun>

Transbody

Dates

  • CANCELLED Transbody, Wien
  • Vienna, Gerhard, Dancing the Voice

    <2014-10-27 Mon>–<2014-11-01 Sat>

  • Vienna, Gerhard, Dancing the Voice

    <2015-02-02 Mon>–<2015-02-07 Sat>

Dancing the Voice

Wien 27.10 - 01.11

  • Packlist
    1. Tracking (full, trolley)
    2. PC, Monitor, keyboard, mouse
    3. Fireface 800 + cables?
    4. second mac Laptop (old mac book pro)
    5. HUB + cables

Tracking Tests Marian

  1. Sync Problem Tests Contact Optitrack support
  2. Stalled Cameras with extensions?
  3. Include Timetags in the OSC message in the NatNet2OSC application as message (not as OSC timetag) after rigid body index
  4. Test "ripples" with pendulum

Wien 02.02.15-08.02

  • Wien be in tanzquartier

    <2015-02-02 Mon 10:30>

  • Wien, Work with Gerhard

    <2015-02-08 Sun>

  • Orga
    • Skype Gerhard, DtV

      :ID: da5bf6f4-5e58-4ea1-ab38-cb80dc150ef2

      <2015-01-28 Wed 11:00>–<2015-01-28 Wed 12:00>

    • DONE Rent car for Wien, Telefon
    • DONE Take car Graz
    • DONE Take car in Vienna
    • DONE Car back in Graz

      :ID: 360e2633-1f29-4f94-b799-4adbe5e3fa0d

    • Packlist
      • [X] 18 cameras (18)
      • [X] 18 super clamps + heads (18)
      • [X] 18 camera cables + reserve (21)
      • [X] tracking targets, 4er, all
      • [X] 3 hubs + reserve + netzteile (5)
      • [X] 3 hub cables + reserve (6)
      • [X] 3 USB extensions (2 short, 1 long) + reserve (10)
      • [X] 2 sync cables + reserve (5)
      • [X] tracking computer with 3 USB ports, keyboard, monitor, mouse
      • [X] tracking laptop with 3 USB ports
      • [X] USB hub + netzteil
      • [X] audio laptop (Gerhard’s old)
      • [X] video laptop (David’s LE laptop)
      • [X] beamer adapter VGA / DVI
      • [X] Ethernet switch (Tracking, audio computer, video computer, reserve for debugging)
      • [X] 1 long Ethernet cable (tracking computer)
      • [X] 3 short Ethernet cables +reserve?
      • [X] old software versions (installer)
      • [X] dongle + info seriennummer
      • [X] calibration kit
      • [X] fader box BCF2000 (connected via USB)
      • [X] nano (usb)
      • [X] Mackie 1604
      • [X] 10 patch cables
      • [X] FF400 + firewire + 400-800 fw cable
      • Coffer
        1. tracking system
        2. clamps
        3. pc
        4. laptop
        5. bcf2000
        6. My rucksack
        7. mixer
      • Marian, Tracking System packing

        <2015-01-29 Thu 11:00>–<2015-01-29 Thu 13:00>

    • DONE Re record On Traces tracking data

Ringvorlesung, Kendra Stepputat, HS 11.1, EG in der Heinrichstr. 36

<2016-06-29 Wed 18:30>–<2016-06-29 Wed 20:30>

  • Notes
    • Presentation myself
      • Mention slides in english
    • Begin to work at the IEM in 2007 in the project EGM
      • Main theme of the project was the relation between body (body movement) and sound (sound production)
    • Why is this an important theme in CM?
      • Known as "the body problem"
      • In Electronic Music and Computer Music sound generating and sound organisating processes are basically decoupled from the body and body movement
      • As opposed to classical instruments where the interface (eg. violin) and the sound producing object are tightly bound, so that they cannot be taken apart
      • In CM this is not the case. Sound synthesis and processing and interfaces for control are decoupled: one can exchange one of the two without changing the other
      • It is a big theme in the context of CM and EM: conferences and hardware and software developments
      • Examples: (theremin, faders, gloves, tracking, extended instruments etc.)
      • The aim is to develop guidelines for developing interfaces which can be intuitive, readily bodily connected
      • Model which is followed is that of classical acoustic instruments.
      • (often forgetting the year long training which is necessary for a musician to shape her / his movements, thinking and body in order to play the instrument as they do)
      • But the "problem" might be seen as an occasion. Liberating music productions from the performers limitation
    • Embodied Generative Music
      • 2007 until 2010 at IEM
      • Two main research lines:
        • Peters:
        • Eckel /Pirro
      • Embodiment:
        • Why did we work with dancers: they are embodiment specialists
      • Generative Music
      • Concept of embodiment in EGM: the possibilities of extending dancers’ bodies into a virtual instrument using a full-body motion tracking system.
      • Should be understood as an artistic research project
    • NO! Artistic research:
      • Research IN the arts (not ON or FOR) (Borgdorff)
      • Non propositional (Mersch)
    • Technical setup
      • Aim was to create a tightly closed loop
    • Structure of the Project
      • Case studies
      • Dancers are confronted with scenarios which we have prepared. Their experience is observed and recorded.
      • Mostly improvisational approach
      • Software development and interaction design is informed by these experiences and the knowledge gained
    • How?
      • Motion tracking system
      • Real-time 8ms and "real-space" interface ~1mm resolution
      • Allowing for "control intimacy" (Ummittelbarkeit Steuerung!)
    • Examples
      • Play Bodyscapes excerpt
      • Explain old "other" scenario
        • A sound file is layed in the space along one (or more) chartesian axes.
        • Time is therefore mapped into space
        • The dancer explores these sounds put into space. The position along the sound axis in space of one (or more) of her joints is taken as position (time) in the soundfile.
        • The sound in the soundfile which is at that time coordinate in the file is played back using granular synthesis
          • Explain briefly granular synthesis
        • Example: offline schwitters (mouse on screen and target in hand)
          • Briefly talk about Ursonate
          • Between 1923 and 1932 by Kurt Schwitters
          • Dadaistisches Lautgedicht (youtube)
    • On traces builds on these experiences and takes advantage of the knowledge gained as well as the technical developments made during this previous experiences
      • The project could demonstrate that full-body motion-tracked dance can function successfully as a touchless interface for digital sound production.
      • It could be shown that the dancer's body may extend consistently into a virtual instrument, enabling a very refined and embodied control over the sound
      • We have seen a clear indication of virtual haptic phenomena
      • Dancers reported an enhanced sense of proprioception: the get more aware of the details of their body movements
      • The sounds put into space form and deforms the perception of space by the dancers and the audience.
      • As such the composition of such sound files is tightly connected to choereography. Even, Choreography and movement is strongly determined by the composition of sounds in space.
    • Mostly we used sound files containing sound produced with the voice
      • Why?: Among all instruments the human voice is the most embodied one.
      • Voice is often used as reference in the study of embodiment in music.
      • Not only our vocal apparatus is highly specialised in the production of sounds, but also human audition (Gehör) is highly specialised in apprehending (warnehmen) these.
      • We have a very detailed perception of these kind of sounds, and we readily can associate with them their bodily provenience.
      • We found that these kind of sounds present a very clear bodily affordance, and affordance which "helps" the dances into immersing into the sounds
    • On Traces however employs a different working situation then EGM
      • The dancers and choreographers (Alexander Gottfarb and Anna Nowak) are not uninvolved. They have been involved in the previous EGM project.
      • They have taken part in the explorations and have dealt (sich auseinandersetzen) with the themes and the technologies.
      • The On traces project (or case study) is transdisciplinary articulating dance / choreography and sound art / music composition
      • Shifts the boundaries between divisions of roles between dancers, musicians and developers
      • Composition takes place at all levels it is a collaborative process.
      • Based on the observation that the particular constraints an instrument constitutes for the performer determine its performability, expressivity and embodiment.
      • Instead of presenting the dancers with predefined scenarios or instruments, they (on the basis of their former experiences) have come to us with ideas.
      • The instrument which is developed is understood as a composition of affordances based on the inclinations and capabilities of the performers and the technology used.
      • It makes therefore sense to re-start thinking from the performer, try to avoid pre-given (by the computer musicians) conditions which possibly are not generated or "grown" out from the performers actions
      • Main objective of these explorations is to further artistic research and practice in the fields of computer music composition and performance, as well as in dance and choreography.
    • Central topics
      • haptic / tactile sensations raised by interacting and reacting to sound placed into space
      • empowering the performers to create their own sound scene / stage
      • they can freely fill the space with sound using their own sound, their own voice as sound material
      • It is the body itself which determines where and how the sound is placed into space.
      • Movements and actions de-form sonically the space in which the performance is taking place
    • Sound axis of EGM reinterpreted as "trace"
      • Technically: the captured movement of a tracked object in space (3D coordinates) is recorded
      • This spatial trace is associated with the sonic input recorded from a microphone the performers are wearing.
      • Similarly to the Schwitters scenario in EGM, when in playback mode the 3D position of the object (pen or tracked object on the body) is projected onto the spatial trace and then into the time coordinate into the recorded audio file.
      • The corresponding audio chunk is played by using granular synthesis
    • Play trailer
    • First metaphor we have worked with in On Traces the 2D writing
      • Very clear example of leaving a trace of sound inscribed into space and time.
    • Show examples
      • geometrical calculations
      • size of the sphere
    • Upcoming developments
      • overdubbing
        • Possibility to record back what is been recorded into a newly recorded trace
        • While playing back what has been placed into space and consequently reacting and reinterpreting the stored sound and the associated movement.
        • Together with the possibilty to "erase" previous trace recordings it is urther stage of re-interpretation re-structuring of the stage which would become a dynamically changing space.
      • Feeds back into computer music performance
        • On the computer music side scenarios are not anymore static
        • They are co-performed by an computer music musicians co-deciding overall aspects of composition and form
        • Mainly determined by technical needs (not all can be done by the dancers while performing)
        • This is not seen by the dancers as an "intrusion" from the outside on the contrary they welcome this additional performers and understand him as a equal (ebenwürdiger) partners
        • Until now they have been "hidden" behind the scenes.
        • Dancers have stated to need a co-performing counterpart and interestingly want to have them on stage.
        • They also will lead the development of suitable control methods which are not based on the usual control interfaces (used until now) as faders, but taking advantage of the knowledge they have gained.
        • In a way this "closes the loop".

Rechnungen

Continuation

  • Traces, Gerhard, Marian

    <2017-03-07 Tue 15:00>–<2017-03-07 Tue 16:00>

  • Possible Period

    <2016-01-04 Mon>–<2016-01-17 Sun>

  • Gerhard, traces, diss

    <2016-12-08 Thu 09:00>–<2016-12-08 Thu 13:00>

  • Tanzquartier

    <2016-02-07 Sun>–<2016-02-15 Mon>

    • DONE Tanzquartier Equipment liste [14/14]
      • [X] 3 large speakers
      • [X] 5 small speakers
      • [X] amps (2x4 channels, 60W) + cables (klinke-cinch)
      • [X] 12.5m 8 speaker cables as multicore
      • [X] Mackie 802 mixer
      • [X] Fireface 800, firewire audio (cable 800/800)
      • [X] MOTU interface for pendulum tests (David)
      • [X] MacPro Live-Elektronik
      • [X] 3x Nanokontrol + USB hub (David)
      • [X] tracking system
      • [X] tracking computer + monitor, keyboard and mouse
      • [X] 18 manfrotto superclamps + schwenkköpfe
      • [X] m-audio interface (for tests AIL)
      • [X] network hub + ethernet cables
      • Pack Equipment

        <2016-02-08 Mon 11:00>

      • DONE Get cable from Neuhold

        <2016-02-03 Wed 10:00>–<2016-02-03 Wed 10:15>

      • DONE Prepare multicore 8 channel cable strip (Michele).
      • DONE Prepare cables for the speakers from multicore
  • DONE Prix Ars Electronica
    • TODOS
      1. Cut down the view to a 3 minutes Trailer (Gerhard's)
      2. Photos (Alexander)
      3. CV and Bio with photo (1 page) each has to do it.
      4. Detailed description of the work (2 Pages absolute max), Alexander sends the material we have already.
      5. Technical specs (David)
    • DONE Send email of the above
    • DONE Prepare CV
    • DONE Write Tech specs
    • Text

      In turn, this unique sonic environment is closely linked to the movements, which are traced by one point on their bodies.

      Moreover, in this unique environment, tracking by one point on the performers' bodies, movements retrace past sound paths, replay and reinterpret them, recomposing the link connecting them.

  • Stockholm DtV

    <2016-08-08 Mon>–<2016-08-20 Sat>

    • GRZ -> ARN

      <2016-08-08 Mon 11:30>–<2016-08-08 Mon 15:15>

    • ARN -> GRZ

      <2016-08-21 Sun 18:30>–<2016-08-21 Sun 22:50>

    • Themes

      Would like to work with one or two performers with microphones and two loudspeakers. I would like to integrate "everything" into one "framework"? Is that at all desirable? (No switching means also blurring)

      1. Speed: This need to be rehearsed further in order to understand how to "use" it, which sort of place it has in our explorations
        1. switching and combining with the absolute?
        2. is there a continuous transformation between absolute and speed?

      This I want to test at first

      1. Relative
        1. Combination with absolute to control when what is played?
        2. Differences as relatives?
      2. Incremental
      3. Control parameters different than switches, more a continuous control (fader?) for:
        1. how much relative
        2. if and how much feedback
        3. speed?
    • DONE Finish Reise and rechnungen Stockholm
  • Traces CUBE

    <2016-09-15 Thu>–<2016-09-18 Sun>

    • Open CUBE: Traces

      <2016-09-17 Sat 16:00>

    • DONE TODOS: control tracing complete for cube, headsets, travel costs
    • DONE Test Vicon CUBE for traces, Send text invitation
  • Traces Conversation
    • CANCELLED Look at video of performaces, read Guy' Texts, React
      • State "CANCELLED" from "TODO" [2017-01-19 Thu 11:21]
  • Traces Stockholm
    • Ideas
      1. work on velocity scenario
      2. grain length to speed setting
      3. median filter settings (length) in main gui
      4. min / max age settings / erasing: prioritising last recording is equal to erasure? (we changed the loop direction in traceserv)
      5. distthreshold is to test
      6. maxSpeed mapping on amplitude : interacts with distthres?
      7. Think about GUI development (David)
    • Dates
      • Traces, Gerhard, Experimentalstudio

        <2017-03-10 Fri 09:00>–<2017-03-10 Fri 19:00>

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-24 Mon

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-25 Tue

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-26 Wed

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-27 Thu

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-28 Fri

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-29 Sat

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-04-30 Sun

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-01 Mon

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-02 Tue

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-03 Wed

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-04 Thu

      • Traces Stockholm

        2017-05-05 Fri

  • Traces Tanzquartier
    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-15 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-16 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-17 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-18 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-19 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-20 Sat>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-21 Sun>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-22 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-23 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-24 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-25 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-26 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-27 Sat>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-28 Sun>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-29 Mon>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-30 Tue>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-05-31 Wed>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-01 Thu>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-02 Fri>

    • Traces Tanzquartier

      <2017-06-03 Sat>

  • Traces, Gerhard, Experimentalstudio

    <2016-10-31 Mon>–<2016-11-02 Wed>

  • DONE Rerecord Tracking of Stockholm Performance
  • DONE TrMatrix for traces

    Affine transformation Matrix. First application

  • CANCELLED TrMatrix into retrace coupling
  • Traces, Anna, Alex, Gerhard, Skype

    <2016-11-02 Wed 12:30>–<2016-11-02 Wed 13:30>

  • Traces conversation

    Traces – A Conversation

  • Gerhard 17 01 07:

    I am starting this conversation in an attempt to trace the development of our project, which dates back to work in the artistic and scholarly research project Embodied Generative Music (EGM, 2007-10). Back then we worked in the CUBE at IEM in Graz, trying to find ways to ‘link bodily movement to sound’. The title of the project was far more optimistic than the formulation I just used, pointing towards a new form of generative music, which we did not manage to establish. But I think the experiences we made in approaching this (probably utopian) goal were far more important, as they and the related questions still occupy us, almost ten years later.

    What could be established rather quickly in EGM was that motion tracking allows for an extension of the dancers body into computer mediated sound. Simply mapping sound files into the geometry of stage space proved successful in many respects. A quasi-tactile relationship could be established with the sound material, allowing the dancer to become ‘one with the sound’, under certain conditions. Possibilities were discovered that could not be imagined at the outset of the project, which tried to find ways to make a certain type of computer music (generative music) performable.

    One of the most striking experiences for me was to see how dances can make sense of a mind-boggling scenario we have created as one of the many experiments we performed. An artificial delay was introduced between the movement and the sound, i.e. the dancers moved to sound they had created some seconds ago, while creating the sound to dance to in a few seconds, i.e. being in the past, the present, and the future at the same time. As if this did not seem confusing enough, we made the delay time dependent on the speed of movement where slow movement meant a longer delay and fast movement almost no delay. After a short time of adaptation, the dancers seemed to cope successfully with the scenario. My interpretation at the time was that both the dancers and the people witnessing their performance made sense of this situation mainly through their bodies, as their minds would not be able to cope with the complexity of the situation.

    Anna, what are your most striking experiences when you think back to the EGM times? I think it would be nice to collect those from all of us before we look into the process that brought us from EGM to where we are now.

  • Anna 17 01 18:

    Well, the EGM project feels so long time ago, that I really have to think now. It seems to me that the experiences with the EGM scenarios back in 2008 and 2009 have not lost on their “striking- ness” compared to what is striking with our current, Traces, process. One point is that when, while being immersed in the environment of sound the “embodiment" happens, both the people watching and the people (dancers) performing feels that is it “right”, and no one can really explain why. As a performer it gives you a feeling of empowerment and fulfilment, which keeps you hungry for more. You move in the sound, with the sound ,on top of it or with the sound within you. The relation to the sound/music is so tight and immediate, I have never experienced anything EGM feeling in any other context.

    Well maybe David (since I know Alex is just busy preparing his new premiere, happening this Friday) could also tell us his fascinations/striking elements of EGM work?

  • David 17 01 30:

    Thinking back to EGM, the most striking moment was for me, as for Gerhard, what we called the "delay scenario". To experience how you, Anna and Alex, could interact with the this scenario was for me one of the most surprising points in the whole project. And it is still an experience which generates questions which are hard to grasp.

    Looking back now, I could say that in developing the EGM scenarios we aimed at producing situations which are "simple", in the sense that these incorporated and put to test what we thought would be essential aspects of the connection between bodily movement and sound. Simple in the sense that we could formulate these situations in uncomplicated algorithms and explain them to someone without relying on a deep technical understanding. Most importantly, these would establish a link between body and sound so "direct" that we could at every moment reconstruct or explain, from a technical point of view, what was happening and why, thus eventually leaving the focus on the questions which were more interesting to us: how did you do it? how did you get there? how was this situation changing you perception? etc. Somehow, I think now, that the idea we (we programmers) were hiding in the back of our heads was that the directness of control was a prerequisite of how we intended embodiment, the extension of the body into the sound, as Gerhard puts it "to become one" with the sound. We thought that this kind of relative simplicity and directness of the interaction was the substrate which would offer the right affordance to grow your body into the sound.

    Methodologically this helped us to work on reduced aspects, to focus on isolated questions: I think ideally we wanted to proceed analytically, somehow trying to break down the complex problem into its constituents (the scenarios). Which is of course a perfectly reasonable strategy.

    The moment I experienced the "delay scenario" explored by you, which was one of the last experiments we did in the EGM project (and which was a kind of an "error" if I recall correctly), I remember being struck by the quality of interaction we were seeing. That scenario presented a situation which was so radically different from everything we have seen before in the project that it seemed to break with everything. I understand now that part of this being struck was that this scenario put the assumptions I've described before were put into question.

    First, the scenario was far more complex then any other we had tested before."Complex" as opposed to the "simplicity" I've tried to define above. It was striking that a relatively small change in the algorithm we formulated transformed a scenario which was very controlled in its "directness" into something which was very complex, mind-boggling as Gerhard said. This might seem an obvious observation and something that we (at least Gerhard and I) have experienced in many different contexts: even a small change in a simple set of rules of an algorithm have the potential to produce unexpected and unforeseeable results. Still, experiencing this so dramatically made me recognise actually how thin the border defining a controlled situation can be, how delicate ad not at all stable such a situation can be. And moreover, how interesting this instability is.

    Further, in some inexplicable way, you could cope with this complexity: a situation which was difficult to grasp rationally or analytically, in which there was no certainty that at one specific input would correspond one and only one specific output, but rather, the sensibility of the system would induce variations of the outcome depending on the whole history of events preceding that moment, thus making every movement unique and non-repeatable. In a sense the scenario had all the characteristics which we didn't want: it wasn't simple nor it did present a clear and direct correlation between movement and sound. But apparently it possessed a sort of coherence which you could follow bodily and while interacting with it, generate and be part of very engaging moments. So, maybe our striving for reduction to essentials, simplicity and directness (in the sense I tried to delineate before) was missing the point? This kind of complexity didn't seem to be a problem for you.

    Our background idea was that the precision and the stability of the control you would be provided by "our" system would be the starting point for you to be able to embody the sound, was suddenly also put in question. In a way, I think we implicitly thought of the entire situation in terms of a traditional musician / instrument relationship where virtuosity is directly proportional to the detail of control musicians would exert on the instrument. But, in the "delay scenario", I would say that you were not really in control (how could you?) of the details of what was happening. It seemed that you continuously oscillated between action and reaction in very small time intervals. This struggle you were in and which was clearly perceivable from the outside, this friction between two elements which were fluctuating between synchronicity and conflict, this was actually the interesting part. So, another question is if this kind of (explicit or implicit) "control" is the right paradigm for what we looking for?

    Gerhard pointed out that the EGM project was after a new form of generative music, in which the form of the composition would be embodied by the dancers' movements, an Utopian aim that was not achieved during the project. Right now, re-imagining the experience of the "delay scenario", I think that study was the closest to that idea. That struggle, that particular kind of fluctuating interaction can be seen as the core of a generative process in which body movement and sound are connected as sort of "equal" elements or partners. Gerhard, can you relate to that?

    In view of this considerations, the definition of Embodiment we have given in the project, as the extension of the bodily proprioception into the sound, becomes also problematic. I think that the idea involves the dissolution of specific qualities of one element (the sound producing instrument, the computer music system) in order to make it permeable to the (total) control of the performer. In the "delay scenario" instead, both actors retained their "character", there was not extending of the one into the other. There was sensibility to the others' action and reaction, friction, but no dissolution. I think this is central to this scenario.

    Interestingly, it seems to me that in the "Traces" there have been analogous (in words unexpressed) thoughts. Even if from a different perspective, we started from a situation in which we aimed at a very detailed control by the performers' over the sound output; the computer music system had to be tailored towards accomplishing specific tasks in the best way possible (the first performance in Vienna). But, in the last developments of the project, it seems to me that we are moving towards more "uncontrolled" terrains, engaging more and more with the very specific qualities of the tools we have developed, reacting to those making them central in the performance rather then eliminating them. I'm thinking of the "feedback studies" or of the continuous space filling (and the consequent uncontrollable sonic space) in which you somehow are giving away part of your control in order to elicit a specific reaction from the system which you can then use as a generator for new movements or forms in general. Somehow there are similarities to the experience of the "delay scenario" in this sense. Alex, what do you think? Can you see what I mean?

    Somehow I would be curious to go back to that "delay" experience now, with the knowledge we have accumulated from the works we have done after and see how we would perceive it now.

  • Notes

    searching for the excess of the perticularity of the teol of the meadium

    incompressibility of the thing itself, of the medium

    the incorporeality of the medium had an effect on the possibilities. there is less responsibility so less obstacles in thinking and developing _>

    digitality is a process material. Is a material which is not static it exsists only as a process.

    in egm talking about exension of the body into the sound (interface) mean to annulate the interface. which is the bad thing, the technology, the inhuman, humanise it in destroying it.

    irreducibility of precessual materiality. of dynamical systems.

Oboe

Michael, Gerhard, Stockholm 02.09.2014

  • space is not cartesian
  • Interesting difference with respect to the other space we are dealing with
  • Means that we have to find ways to construct space out if the RELATIONS emerging from the data structure
  • The are ways, paths between the different objects (or points) in that space that structure the space.
  • There is a "time" needed to walk these paths that also determines how difficult or easy a specific path is to go.
  • in a radical vision the path actually constructs the two points, rather than the path is constructed by the difference between the points
  • a sort of phase space were different attractors reside structuring and deforming the space
  • composition would explore this space, starting from a point and "looking at" which path would arise
  • data set is interesting because it comes out of a "bodily informed" catalogue. Interesting because it is "different" and because it already structures the space of possibilities which as a composer am I confronted with.
  • the data set encloses aspects which would are difficult to "get" is I'm not a musician. aspects typically relevant in an improvisation setting
  • dealing with this space as a composer leads to a modification in the way a piece is composed. rather than concentrating on a merely "perceptual" outcome (the melody of the moldau) there is a second "meta"-layer on which I am operating (maybe always the case in composition?)
  • How can this layer be made accessible for the audience?
  • It should be made accessible as actually the relationship between the two layers is the most interesting thing.
  • can there be a sort of visualisation that is running parallel to the piece in a way representing graphically the way, the "path" the musician is "walking"
  • one idea: one dimensional visualisation using colors blue for easy red for difficult
  • other idea: draw figures representing the possible "next" points I (musician) could "go to" in relation to the difficulty (distance function) to get to them from the point I am now.
  • radical differences: to "cancel out" from the live-produced sound the sound of the "right" point, only deviations are sonified or visualized

EEG

DONE Tasks [2/2]

  • [X] Perl scripts to SC Get pearl scripts to work
    • jittering of data
  • [X] Drawing algorithm (Michael)

Answer mail Michael

Obj2Image

  • Send to Luc
  • Luc, Skype, obj2view

    :ID: 6d329d7d-1e3c-404a-8238-e4d8a1f61dd3

    <2015-06-22 Mon 14:00>–<2015-06-22 Mon 16:00>

Neuro

Tasks [5/8]

  • [X] Rebody Installation version video
  • [X] Rebody better performance version (at the moment it's only 640x480)
  • [ ] Do profile in the RC better
  • [ ] Name for the second case study
  • [X] Render video from the lansner presentation. Get the SC Patch from Gerhard. neuro command line: ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/spikesnoosc200s16.txt 3306 0 200000 300 36 13 0.375667 0.000000 -7.070866 3.086567 185.232315 0.000000 5.511811 1.468504 1.791435 1.496465 1.772441 0.307744 0.206519 2.310104 1 1 0 1 1
  • [ ] Copy the page to the viewer into to lansner and hen relink to dynamical systems on my page.
  • [X] Description of the drawing agorithm,
  • [X] SVG Export in gui
  • DONE Export two channel version of Bremen
  • DONE Reflections case study 1
  • DONE SVG Export!!!

Spikes

  • Insert into recordings?
  • Correlation?
    • Gerhard's mail

ndViewer

  • Correlation, read in data, sliding window
  • Fill in minicolumns
  • DONE Export video with definite time relations
  • Prepare text export positions
  • Rattel to osx
  • Enhance ndView for osx
    • Parameter GUI
  • Do Forces fade out method
  • Description of the n-dimensional Viewer

    In the project "Transpositions" we are dealing with large data sets especially those in which several variables are stored in dependence of one (matrix i.e. a 2-dimensional tensor) or generally more independent variables (resulting in a 3 or more dimensional matrices, commonly defined as tensors). For example, the data in the Lansner case study, we have dealt with large data sets in which the dependent variables are the potentials of cells in a neural network the independent variable being time, resulting therefore in data sets of the form of a matrix (2-dimensional).

    When dealing with this kind of data one of the first questions is how to look or "represent" this data. The interest lies in looking at how the dependent variables vary an change with respect to the independent variables or in relation to other dependent variables in the set. That means that, despite the fact the the data is stored in a 2-dimensional matrix format, we are actually dealing with not just 2 or 3 dependent variables (whose development would be easier to represent or imagine in an cartesian space), but many many more. That is, in general we are dealing with spaces of variables that are more that 3-dimensional, n-dimensional.

    Mostly the approach to the problem is to find ways in order reduce the dimensionality of the space considered using various tools commonly taken from statistical analysis. This analysis techniques focus on some computing some quantities from the data which are considered relevant to the present study, necessarily concentrating on finding out specific aspects about the data and leaving out or separating these from other aspects considered not relevant, thus reducing the quantity of information delivered by the data.

    It is important to note that this approach works under the assumption that the non relevant quantities have no influence on the relevant ones calculated and looked at. This assumption is of course a very narrow filter on the data and in a way "external" to the data considered, but of course influenced and grows out by all previous studies conducted on similar sets.

    It is therefore possible to suppose that there are aspects of the data which are not (or cannot) be seen through the lens of previously defined assumptions and analysis methods. Thus, it seems legit to take a step back and try to look at the whole picture delivered by the data, defining it as a whole and unseparable system. But a way has to be found in order to make this picture perceivable as in general, n-dimensional spaces and structures can be very hard for us to perceive or imagine.

    I refer here to "structures" in the sense of sequence of data points which in general draw a path of points or states of the system in an n-dimensional space and having clearly defined geometrical relationship with each other.

  • Approach

    The n-dimensional Viewer tries to approach this problem, employing a 2-dimensional view of n-dimensional structures or state paths.

    The Viewer is based on the following ideas:

    1. The viewer uses the geometrical relations between all the points defining the structure or the path.
    2. The viewer represents one datum (or vertex) in the n-dimensional space as one dot on the 2-dimensional plane connected with lines to the other points.
    3. The geometrical distances between the points in the 2D plane is dependent from the distances of the data points in the set.
      • The distance function between data points can be for example an euclidean distance function or any other smooth and differentiable function that associates 2 n-D vectors to one scalar value (one number).
    4. This dependence is exact, i.e. the distances from one point to all the other in the 2D plane of the viewer has the same value as the distance in the data for the point(s) which are in the exact center of the plane. The points further away from the center are connected to the other points with distances which are still dependent from the data point, but this dependence is less and less strict as farther the point is from the center.
      • This choice has been made as generally it could be not possible to solve the problem of placing the points such that all distances between all the points are exact.
      • As a consequence we have chosen to prefer local over global exactness.
      • A second consequence is that it could be necessary to "navigate" or manipulate the structure, placing different points in the center of the viewer and observing the how the net of distances changes accordingly.
    5. Finding the appropriate positions for each point in the plane given only their relative distances is in general a difficult problem to solve which has no univocal solutions and which has no analytical (in the sense of a mathematical closed formulation) solution, but has to be solved numerically. In the present case to find a solution of the problem we use a dynamical system. Each point in the plane is considered a point mass exerting a force an all other points pushing them at a distance to it equal to the distance value we are targeting. This force is weaker when the point is farther from the center. When this system is simulated numerically it eventually converges to a configuration which represents as exactly as possible to the set of distances we have put in.
    6. An important thing to note is that, being the force acting between the masses independent from rotations, i.e. the force depends only on the distance, the resulting figure or solution is invariant under rotations around the center of the plane.
  • Force Function

    The force acting between the points-masses in the viewer, is dependent only on the distance. The force between two point-masses in dependence of the target distance the two should keep is repulsive if their current distance is less then the target and attractive if it is greater and exactly zero if the distance equals the target.

    The force formula can be written as:

    f = (x - l - hrd)pwf - xpwf

    where:

    1. f is the force: if positive it's repulsive that is the point-mass is pushed away from the exerting mass
    2. x is the distance between the point-masses
    3. l is the "target" distance
    4. hrd is the "hardness" parameter always > 1.0; the parameter control how hard the boundary between the repulsive and attractive regions is; greater values are used for more soft boundaries
    5. pwf is and exponent typically < -1.0 which controls how steep the force function in dependence of the distance is.

    Here a few plots to clarify the effect of the various parameters:

Meetings

  • Stockholm, Neuro

    :ID: 0764e970-e014-42a4-b07f-bce74e72e414

    <2015-03-23 Mon>–<2015-03-26 Thu> KTH at 2015-03-16

    • Travel
      • DONE Dienstreiseantrag

        :ID: 2909cfb5-7535-47da-a625-52666d2a526b

    • TODOs
      1. Only one polygon
      2. Mute on / off lines
      3. Michael gives two time ranges then render for this two ranges all 16
      4. Render out positions, and correlations?
  • Stockholm, Neuro

    <2015-06-08 Mon>–<2015-06-10 Wed>

  • Neuro Gerhard, Visualisation, Iko
  • Neuro Gerhard Wien
  • Gerhard, Michael, Skype

    :ID: 029c235b-cd83-4d9e-864f-bc5a3e6440bc

    <2015-05-19 Tue 13:00>–<2015-05-19 Tue 15:00>

Bremen

<2015-05-07 Thu>–<2015-05-09 Sat>

:ID: 252f18d2-f98b-4314-9adb-2de688a63037

  • Presentation

    <2015-05-08 Fri 14:30>–<2015-05-08 Fri 15:00>

    • Video Presentation

      <2015-05-08 Fri 18:00>–<2015-05-08 Fri 18:30>

    • Fact Sheet Dynamical System

      The system was implemented as a 2-dimensional view of N-dimensional structures.

      The dynamical system is composed by:

      1. A number of point ( = dimensionless) masses.
      2. A set of rules ( = forces) interconnecting them.

      The masses are bound to move on a 2-dimensional plane.

      The rules are implemented such that masses tend to organise themselves in a network in which the relative distances to each other on the plane are equal to, or at least are a good approximation of a pre-given set of "target distances" of the points defining the N-dimensional structure.

      The forces between the masses are formulated as smooth functions of mass to mass distance. The force is repulsive (i.e. positive, the mass is pushed away from each other) when their distance is too small and attractive (i.e. negative, masses are drawn nearer to each other) if their distance is too big with respect to the target value. The force is zero when the mass is at the "target distance".

      The forumla for the force f is:

      f(x) = m*((x - td + 0.00001 + hrd)pwf - hrdpwf)

      where: x = the distance of the masses on the plane m = the mass mass (weight) td = the "target distance" 0.00001 = is a small offset to prevent infinite terms when pwf is < 0.0 hrd = "hardness" factor: if > 1.0 the repulsive part of the force is less strong pwf = exponent, typically < 0.0. Defines how the force function depends on the distance.

      If pwf < 0.0, the force can be seen as an inverted and shifted gravitational-like force.

      The term "-hrdpwf" shifts the force "down" towards the attractive half-plane when x > td.

      In the present case, the "target distances" are set to be the correlation values between neurons or chosen groups of neurons in the neuronal model considered. Number of neurons (of groups of) and grouping in hypercolumns are read for the input data file.

  • Travel
    • Graz->Fra->Bremen

      <2015-05-07 Thu 14:05>–<2015-05-07 Thu 17:45>

    • Bremen->Fra->Graz

      <2015-05-09 Sat 14:25>–<2015-05-09 Sat 18:10>

Stockholm

  • Travel
  • Gerhard, Michael, Preparation

    :ID: 0fdb9e13-a409-44f2-9416-ec18d4ebd60c

    <2015-05-22 Fri 10:30>–<2015-05-22 Fri 12:00>

  • Gerhard, Michael, Preparation

    :ID: 62527afe-dcd6-4d71-9cf7-0a0adfa8e8c0

    <2015-06-03 Wed 10:30>–<2015-06-03 Wed 12:00>

  • Graz -> Stockholm

    <2015-06-07 Sun 18:35>

  • Seminar / presentation

    <2015-06-10 Wed 09:00>

    • Themes
      • Using dynamical systems means to give away control to discover things which possibly could not be otherwise discovered.
      • Different from transformation
    • To dos
      1. Falten
  • Stockholm -> Graz

    <2015-06-10 Wed 16:50>

Transpositions Klausur

:ID: 0227b97d-9409-43c2-adcb-64713c1d1852

<2015-08-10 Mon>–<2015-08-12 Wed>

  • Behaviour Notes

    Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment. It is the response of the system or organism to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.

    The definition of Behaviour could be generalised to: > > A Behaviour is a sequence of states of a dynamical system.

    Quite similar to the definition of orbit then, which is an ordered subset of the state space from some initial state.

    > The we could introduce new subclasses: > > Temporal Behaviour isa Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. time > for all the concepts already in this branch of TEDDY > e.g. "Oscillation"

    These would be topologically equivalent orbits, I guess.

    > Parameter-dependent Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. specific parameters > e.g. "Bifurcating Behaviour"

    Mathematically meaning a topological change in the in the phase portrait then.

    > Environment-dependent Behaviour > changes in system state wrt. changes in the environment > e.g. "Stable Behaviour", "Switching Behavior"

    Merriam-Webster dictionary: `anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation'

    Behaviour as a specific defining characteristic of an organism or of an identity which exhibits a sort of intention.

    Intention organism

    behaviour in the case of the neuro thing

    Behaviour is what interests me.

    In particular I'm interested in behaviour as a a defining characteristic of an Identity.

    That is the in which how does a system evolving thought in time behave in such way that it can be recognised as one entity having the identity defined by that particular behaviour. In which way does this particular behaviour construct (in our perception) emerge as identity segregated from others exhibiting different or similar or equal behaviour.

    identity the distinguishing character or personality of an individual

    complexity

    Analysis of the single elements of a systems fails to explain or better give a glimpse of the overall behaviour. Another point of view is needed. One that accepts te comple

    Analytical approach (both in the sense of a personal stance towards experience and in the mathematical sense of being able to express a problem in a closed form in terms of variables, know functions and constants)

    Versus "numerical approach" in which thing have to be simulated, that is the solution is not known. Each step has to be take in the sequence of changes defining of the system.

    The moment when a "system" becomes perceptible as "other" in contrast to "function". Other in the sense that it exhibits a behaviour that presupposes some "intention". And reaction to stimuli.

    Interaction. Some grey zone between predictable behaviour and unpredictable (the extreme of which being noise).

    Purpose: the prediction of the future from the past belongs to the theory of causality; the determination of the past from the present belongs top the theory of purpose.

    Mathematical formulation(s)

    Behaviour as a perceptual quality like colour etc.

    The neuro dynamical system is used as a problem solver, not as an analysis tool. Which I image would be if I dynamical system was designed exposing similar behaviour as the analysed system, ore some sub-system with simpler behaviours "resonating" at a specific eigen-behaviour of the analysed system

    Look at the system as a whole: example if one would focus on observing one neuron cutting it out of the whole system one would not grasp the

  • Behaviour Notes
    1. General. Start with the book
      • Behaviour is a vague and ambiguous term and is used in differently in various contexts (mathematics, physics, philosophy, social sciences etc.).
      • The main problem to me seems to be that it is difficult to speak of Behaviour as a thing in itself. As opposed to "texture" or "figure" for which one can say "this is a figure / texture" it seems difficult to say "this is a behaviour".
      • Behaviour appears to be always connected to a "thing" to something, an entity or a person which "behaves" in some way.
      • Geometry of Behaviour, this is the Behaviour I'm referring to when speaking of it. And also this book, which deals apparently with behaviour, does not contain any clear definition of behaviour.
      • In this book and in my perspective, which is mostly a strict mathematical or geometrical point of view, behaviour can be generally defined as a sequence of states an entity (system) undergoes in time. Behaviour is change, it's he change of an entity with respect of its surrounding. This sequence being generally thought of paths a entity's (system) state undergoes through time.
      • This definition is still very vague and general, but looking at it more closely, behaviour has some characteristics or qualities which define it a bit better:
        1. it is well-defined, in a mathematical sense, meaning:
          1. it is smooth and differentiable, there are no discontinuities or "jumps" or breakings or sudden changes
          2. it is deterministic (even if chaotic in general) and predictable, if one know the starting condition with infinite precision
      • By this tentative definition Behaviour is an "abstract object" or construct which is build from "change" or variation. The kind of "change" being the characteristic property of the behaviour being observed.
      • For being able to observe Behaviour two things are needed: a kind of space and time (the independent variable).
        1. One could see a similarity between this notion of Behaviour and the notion of Sound Object. Now we can say "This is a Sound" even without really intending the objects which produces the sound, but really the "object" sound itself. and Sound is an "object" a perceptible object which is in fact produced by a sequence of state changes of an object (a bell or the membrane of a loudspeaker), displacements, oscillations period harmonic or chaotic of on object in our space. There is no problem in saying this is a sound even if a sound is always connected to a physical object. In fact one could see Sound as a particular kind of Behaviour, Behaviour being the more general term for it.
      • For example: an Harmonic Oscillator exhibits a particular behaviour, which can be described in many ways. This Behaviour is very characteristic and recognisable (mathematically as well as perceptually) distinguishable from many others. The "changes" of the entity (system) an harmonic oscillator are called periodic oscillation. And Period Oscillations ARE a Behaviour, clear, recognisable, perceptible. This behaviour is common to all harmonic oscillator systems and it is the fundamental characteristic of this particular class of systems. from the pther side if you look at the behaviour of an unknown system, that is how it changes in time, and see periodic oscillations, then you would know that this is an harmonic oscillator.
      • Seen this way Behaviour is not only attaches, linked to, or "the behaviour of" something. It is:
        1. a Perceptible quantity. A sine tone is a Sound.
        2. a defining quality of systems or better entities. If there is a perceptible behaviour then there is an entity (or a system). (it is not necessary true though that all entities have a behaviour).
      • Exhibiting a clear behaviour a set constituted of interconnected elements becomes "one", an entity, as a the system build of two masses connected by a spring becomes AN harmonic Oscillator. Looking at just one of the elements of the system in order to understand or describe it is not anymore sufficient One has to see the "whole Picture".
        1. Think of a swarm of birds changing shapes, evolving and dancing in the air. Now imagine to look at only one of the birds in the swarm. Its movements would be "strange", kind of erratic, "senseless". When put again in company of its fellows the movement makes again "sense". It is necessary to see the whole picture in order to have a chance to grasp it.
    2. How do I use it
      • In my own artistic praxis my interest lies in the composition of behaviour. That is in the designing of sound-producing or manipulating active and reactive (to input) systems.
      • It is particular interesting to me such kind of systems, in particular those with an active behaviour. When audified, (that is the displacements of their constituting elements in time are interpreted as sound pressure values), not only is the Behaviour of the system perceptible as such (though not recognisable as belonging to a formerly known class, but maybe similar to some of them). In further seems to infer the action and reaction of an entity in the background.
      • An kind haptic quality is injected into the sound unfolding as if it were the result of a material object or entity with some kind of "intention".
      • In this line of work a do "generate" behaviour, in a sense out of nothing, out of no purpose (useless machines) if only the possibiliy to interact with the system.
    3. How to use it in the Project
      • We did not use it up until now.
      • What we did was to use a specific quality of systems having an active behaviour. This kind of systems can in fact have a "purpose" or an "intention".
      • The behaviour of the dynamical system we used in the ndViewer had the intention or purpose to solve a problem: the problem of placing n masses on a plane given their relative distances.
      • Having assumed that the data at present is the result of the change of a dynamic system, one could search for sequences in the data defining a recognisable behaviour. Reconstruct then this behaviour resulting into a map defining a particular space. This map would could then ba the basis for visualisation and / or audification.
      • Having the reconstructed behaviour it would be even possible to generate data from it and again oppose it to the real data.

    One possibility would be to look for specific bahviaours

    • Look at the whole is necessary.

    Active passive behaviour

    "It is A behaviour" what does this mean?

    Part vs whole

    Behaviour I know can be on different objects or systems can have similar behaviour. T

    When the Behaviour can be described or in some way represented it could become an "object" which has a specificity for which can actually say "this is a Behaviour" (example of the lorentz attractor pp 380 onwards).

    Post-medium: not more transparent. Krauss: medium becomes obejct when I use it, when I interact with it.

    Other, is a reflection of the self.

  • Notes

    Why is it a strategical decision?

    How do we want to work as a team in the future? How do we bring our works together?

    • Texture

      Relation between texture and figure.

      Absence of temporal qualities and development. But there is change over time. They change constantly remaining the same.

      It is a very general and broad concept. Almost everything could be a texture.

      Undirected open organisation of things.

      poses the condition for emergence of structures in perception.

      Pattern is a connected term.

      there is a space with elements on relations (distances) between these elements.

      composing a texture is as the process formulated that organises the elements.

      interesting the interaction with the visual counterpart of textures.

      texture extends in some space

      texture is not a narration, the history is created by the viewer, the texture just offers the possibility, the space for it.

      Textures can be immersive as well as possible being completely in the background.

      there is complementarity between spatial and temporal aspects of textures

      the lecture process leaves a path by which the extend and structure of the texture.

      Composing with or / and against the strategies of perception.

    • Michael
      • Fragment

        Fragment as connected to the whole is also a reflection of the whole

        is also project in sense that it need completion.

      • Proto-Object

        2 spaces graphematic space and representative space equals esperimental and scientific (wissenschaftlich) there are connected but work different

        proto-objetcs are in the graphematical space, but already more advanced then epistemic objetcs, but refuses to be representative.

      • Together

        are proto-objects fragments?

      • Exposition
      • Notes

        this is all constructed! not based out of the praxis. The meaning and relevance of the praxis is constructed a posteriori in order to creat spefici images of the work been done.

        This is a mnipulative stance towards us and the audience

        Not out of the experience and praxis, but out of "polotical" thoughts.

        Say what has to be done and how ind order to achieve something.

        Says how things are to be interpreted.

        All the rest has been relativised.

        What has beed produced by him? Or really done for the project?

        "I want to see some specific thing" Ok, how?

  • Graz -> Stockholm

    <2015-08-10 Mon 11:30>–<2015-08-10 Mon 15:15>

  • Stockholm -> Graz

    <2015-08-13 Thu 16:50>–<2015-08-13 Thu 20:35>

Todos

  1. x Non linear distance to correlation mapping
  2. x Fade out of force
  3. x Alpha to group area mapping
  4. x correct error line in only points
  5. recording
  6. x Ranges: particulary frame change Hz
  7. correlation function
  8. x Error 81
  9. x lines drawing threshold
  10. previous version with folding
    1. c1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c1data.txt 4182 0 200000 503 20 9 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 2.067716 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c1data.txt 2452 0 200000 503 20 2 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
    2. c2
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 200000 503 20 2 0.349387 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 200000 503 22 1 0.261410 -1.889764 -1.968504 1.488976 4842.164062 0.000000 100.000000 8.000000 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 100000 503 20 2 0.202809 -1.039371 -1.496063 1.411811 3369.452148 0.000000 100.000000 3.272441 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
      • ./neuro3 ~/ownCloud/TP/data/neuro/txt/c2data.txt 0 0 100000 503 20 2 0.202809 -2.078740 -1.023623 1.296063 4842.164062 3.149606 100.000000 4.640945 1.007874 0.001000 0.100000 0.457471 0.206519 2.310104 1 0 0 0 1
  11. obj export

hypercolumns piece

  • Text
    • introduction

      The composition series "hypercolumns" uses data from neural networks simulations which have been computed at the Lansner lab - Computational neuroscience and Neurocomputing Laboratory at the Royal Institute of Technology KTH in Stockholm. In the context of the artistic research project "Transpositions" (project Team: Gerhard Eckel, Michael Schwab, David Pirrò) founded by the PEEK Program of the Austrian Science Found this data has been reinterpreted and transposed to be building material for artistic works. This composition is one of them

    • composition

      The data has a complex structure of neurons organised in two overlapping groups of minicolumns and hypercolumns spanning the whole network. The data of one of the hypercolumns of the network has been analysed with methods of phase space reconstruction in the attempt to find, visualise and sonify attractor behaviours hidden in the data. A four dimensional representation of the attractor has been chosen: on pages 1 to 6 projections of the attractor on different planes can be seen. The evolution of the data has been projected on 4 differen axes producing thus obtaining four curves. The miniatures consist of extracts of those curves.

    • miniatures

      In the following pages there are 15 miniatures. As said before these consist of 4 graphs (from top to bottom).

      Each miniature should be played by one instrument and should be ca. 1 minute long. The 6 vertical axes mark segments of ca. 10 second length.

      Each of the four graph should be interpreted as one of the following playing parameters:

      1. Tempo: ranging from 90 at the bottom of the graph to 140 bpm at the top. The middle roughly corresponding to 120 bpm.
      2. Dynamics: ranging from pp at the bottom of the graph to sfz at the top. The middle corresponding to mf.
      3. Legato / Staccato: ranging from the shortest possible notes at the bottom to a continuously played note at the top.
      4. Sound modification: ranging from normal played tone at the bottom to modified tone at the top. Depending on the possibilities of the instrument and of the player various types of modifications can be chosen. For example, for strings the player can choose over or underpressure. For clarinet the player can either use multiphonics of singing while playing. For horn player con use dampers. The player has the freedom of choice, but the modification should be clearly perceivable.

      The choice of which one of these 4 parameters is associated to which one of the 4 graphs is left to the interpreter. But all parameters have to be used.

      Generally the interpreter should play only one pitch. It is allowed for the interpreter to change pitches in the regions marked by a thick bar at the top of the page. At the end of these transitions the pitch should again remain fixed.


    • This composition has been realised during a residency at the Institute for Music & Acoustics at the ZKM, Karlsruhe in August 2015.

Continuous Reconfiguration

  • Raspi solution
    • Configuration
      • password

        tp/reconfiguration-01

      • keyboard und mouse

        are disabled. This is done by adding the line SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", DRIVERS=="usbhid", ACTION=="add", ATTR{authorized}="0" on the beginning of the file /etc/udev/rules.d/99-com.rules to edit: sudo nano /etc/udev/rules.d/99-com.rules

      • startup

        Autostart executes the script reconfiguration.sh in the home/pi directory. modify this file for setting which file is played by the omxplayer (video player). Currently the player loop the longer file reconfigurations030500.mov. Anyway, the other, shorter file is also in the pi. Both files are on the home/pi folder.

      • ip address

        The raspberry takes a static ip address: 192.168.0.10 (255.255.255.0). This behaviour can be changes by editing the file /etc/dhcpcd.conf and comment or modify the lines: interface eth0 static ipaddress=192.168.0.10/24 static routers=192.168.0.1 static domainnameservers=192.168.0.1 8.8.8.8

      • HDMI output

        The omxplayer is set to play the video on the HDMI output that is set to 1920x1080 60 Hz

      • Startup Bug?

        It seems that sometimes the raspberry refuses to boot if power is plug in and the HDMI cable or/and keyboard or mouse are attached. The solution is to plug in power and AFTER connect the HDMI cable. This is the reason for the numbers on the case: these should indicate the order of plugging. (They are not optimal, maybe we should for something different that works better visually. Or just describe the issue and the order of plugging in the certificate/notes: probably the best idea).

  • DONE ,,, Get raspi to work and send to Gerhard

COMPASS

Skizzo

  • IBAN & BIC

    IBAN IT50 D076 0102 2000 0007 6186 964 BIC BPPIITRRXXX

  • DONE Werkvertrag Skizzo
  • DONE Check with skizzo dates, persons, rooms for Autumn at COMPASS
    • Possible Dates

      Closed meetings, only COMPASS

      1. 13-14.10
      2. 22-23-24-25.11 (Collaboration)
      3. 15-16.12
    • Rooms
      • Analysis (also remote)
        1. 8x4 meters (20-30 persons)
        2. Video projector
        3. PC to projector (PDF presentation)
        4. loudspeakers (1, probably only for remote: to check)
      • Collaboration (only for presents)
        1. bigger ca. 80 persons
        2. projection
        3. loudspeakers (2)
    • Persons
      1. Mallot
      2. Oleg, Denissov
  • DONE Skizzo for times in analysis meeting in October

CERN Presentation Room 892-1-D20

<2016-10-13 Thu 14:00>–<2016-10-13 Thu 15:00>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation

    <2016-09-30 Fri 09:30>–<2016-09-30 Fri 11:00>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation

    <2016-10-11 Tue 11:00>–<2016-10-11 Tue 12:30>

  • Gerhard, Skype, presentation ??

    <2016-10-12 Wed 09:30>–<2016-10-12 Wed 11:00>

  • Gerhard Genf arrival

    <2016-10-13 Thu 11:50>

  • Notes Gerhard

    Die Ziele des Besuchs sind

    • neue Verbündete unter den Wissenschaftlern zu finden
    • mehr Verständnis und damit hoffentlich Support für unsere Arbeit bekommen
    • die Casestudy weiter zu präzisieren
    • Erfahrung mit dem Betrieb / den Menschen zu machen
    • den Besuch zu absolvieren um darauf verweisen zu können (gegenüber FWF und Arts@CERN)

    Begründung warum wir mit dem CERN arbeiten

    • im TP-Team gibt es Interesse an Teilchenphysik
    • Teilchenphysik pass gut in das breite Spektrum unserer Casestudies
    • Forschung am CERN ist ein für uns besonders interessantes gesellschaftliches und kulturelles Phänomen

    Warum wir mit COMPASS arbeiten

    • Untersuchung des Spins ist eine besonders interessante Herausforderung
    • weil schwer zu verstehen oder vorzustellen, sehr abstract
    • private Kontakte existierten

    Wie wir vorgehen sollten

    • möglichst auf einer Metabene bleiben
    • nicht Resultate sondern Ansätze präsentieren
    • unsere Praxis der Transposition als alternative Denkrichtung vorstellen
    • zeigen, warum Daten für uns künstlerisch interessant sind

    Was wir konkret zeigen sollten

    • alle anderen Casestudies ansatzweise vorstellen
    • besonders die Neuro-Videos
    • DA TA rush
    • alles kurz und bündig, möglichst keine Details, nur auf Nachfrage

    Wie wir schließen sollten

    • Kontaktwünsche artikulieren ("weitere Giulios”)
    • Gespräche am selben Tag in der Kaffeepause, bei einem Abendessen möglich
    • geographische Synergien suchen (Leute in London, Graz, Stockholm, Triest?)
    • wenn es Interesse gibt, dann reisen wir auch zu neuen potentiellen Partnern
    • Zusammenarbeit im Frühjahr 2017 mit Arts@CERN ankündigen
    • Abschlussevent ankündigen
  • Notes

    Our aims:

    1. Raise awareness of towards our research
    2. Provoke reactions
    3. Find new interesting people willing to engage end possibly collaborate.
    4. make contact with researchers and experience the environment.
    5. we want to remain on "higher ground"
      • even if we have already worked with the COMPASS data, we do not want to present our works as "results" or "findings", which would probably be the case due to the context of the presentation and the expectations (is that a theme we could rise at the beginning?)

    Structure:

    1. Play neuro video right at the beginning
    2. Who are we
      • where do we work, our context, University institute etc.
      • presentation of Gerhard and David (short with background)
      • (artistic research? this may be a bit tough at this point but could work as "provocation" in this context)
    3. What do we now
      • The transpostions project (introduce Michael briefly)
      • Why are data interesting from our artistic point of view?
      • We use data as a "material" out of which to produce artistic works.
      • No representations, sonification or visualisation of the data. which would be functional to a certain interpretation of it.
      • Explain briefly the first video (neuro data etc.)
      • We are attempting alternative perspectives on data "extracted" from consolidated research (processes)
      • The aim is to produce art works in the hope that these could bring to light different views on the phenomena which could possibly further or at least influence research praxis.
    4. Play DA TA trailer
      • shortly explain with which data we have worked with for the exhibition.
      • The exhibition was intended as a research event in itself
      • mention Symposium + interventions?
    5. Why are we at CERN?
      • In our process (DA TA being part of it) we discovered that we could regard our praxis as a sort "destabilisation" of the ideal that data as stable, transparent and inactive component of the research process
      • Data seems as much being an active component in the research process (in that it "influences" the experimental results) as being affected by it (the experimental apparatus is constructed on the very scientific assumptions it wants to answer)
      • And therefore it's interesting for us to better understand and focus in our work on this complex relationship of the data and its context (theoretical, technical as well as social etc.)
      • From this perspective CERN and COMPASS are highly structured, specialised and compartmentalised contexts are for us interesting cultural and social phenomena
      • We have interest in particle physics as one of the more advanced, technically specialised, yet far from the public imaginary
      • Working on such highly abstract and "interpreted" data presents a interesting challenge to our project
      • We want to broaden the spectrum of different case studies we are dealing within the project
      • There were previous private contacts (Giulio)
    6. We do we offer and what do we want.
      • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
      • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
      • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what come out.
      • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe have some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
      • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
  • Version 12.10

    Topic

    • 1. Video [2 min]
      • video plays from the beginning, but without sound
      • once we have been introduced, we fade in the sound without comment
      • after 1 minute or so we fade out the sound again
      • the video plays on silently in the background of the first part of the presentation
    • 2. We [2 min]
      • presentation David & Gerhard
        • we are artists involved in research using scientific and artistic practices
        • work at IEM
        • we are trained as artists and scientists
        • composition, sound art, video art, musicology, physics
        • Michael (not present)
          • visual artist and philosopher
          • JAR editor-in-chief, AR theorist
          • core team has common artistic work history
      • slide 1: artistic research: creating possibilities for experiences from which insigts may emerge
        • relatively cautious formulation, others:
        • we create possibilities for (aesthetic) experiences affording epistemic potential
        • we consider artworks as non-propositional arguments / proposals
    • 3. Project [5 min]
      • slide 2: transpositions: artistic data exploration
        • TP
          • fundamental research funded by FWF, 2014-17
          • aim: creating new artistic forms based on scientific data
          • remaining “true” to the data, transposition are precisely defined
        • why interest in data?
          • we use data as a "material" out of which to produce artistic works
          • not representations, sonification or visualisation of the data
          • not instrumental for certain interpretations of the data
          • we are attempting alternative perspectives on data "extracted" from consolidated research contexts
      • slide 3: creating new traces
        • establish experiental spaces enabling reflection and imagination
        • thought experiments, building and testing conjectures and intuitions
      • explain brain data video
        • data from a simulation of memory recall processes in a bilogically inspired neural network
        • transposed into an audio-visual experience
        • mostly regulated by artistic and not only scientific reasoning (has to work as art)
        • but: transpositional operations are precicely defined, in a scientific sense
        • won’t explain the concrete ones now, but in a later example (Causality Report)
      • how transpositions work
        • full experience is only possible with knowledge of these operations
        • practice with experiencing transposition is needed, skills need to be developed (experience/reflection)
        • transpositons open spaces for imaginationtion, reflection, agrumentation
        • includes decisions arbitrary with respect other trace making approaches (e.g. scientific)
        • allows for traces to appear, which would not appear otherwise
    • 4. Case Studies [1 min]
      • project work is based on case studies
      • each case study: particular data set
      • 4 case studies
        • computational neuroscience: memory recall processes
        • molecular biology: DNA folding and gene expression
        • physical cosmology: dark energy
        • particle physics: deep inelastic scattering
    • 5. Sharing [6 min]
      • presentation of research: formats: exhibitions, concerts, symposia, seminars
      • DA TA rush: research event format: exposition, laboratory, symposium
      • provoke (aesthetic) discourse, get scientists also there!
      • data used (3 case studies: neuroscience, cosmology, COMPASS)
      • see now a brief 5 minute video (“enter aesthestic space now” )
      • video [5 min]
    • 6. Installations [5 min]
      • last two elements of video (white inflatable, struck steel rods)
      • one run of the 2004 transverse data and the corresponding raw data
      • hits data and reconstructed data
      • reconstructed data
        • make spatial error of the reconstruction process visible
        • trajectory reconstruction error at primary vertex position
        • superimposed ellipsoids whose semi-principal axes correspond to the x, y, z standard deviation
        • reconstruction process as generator of forms not as "transparent" interpretation
      • hits data installation
        • make temporal sequence of hits of one event experiencable (photo: trigger)
        • map detector array onto an aray of steel rods, which can be excited with solenoids
        • hit them whenever hits have been registered for the correspsonding set of detectors
    • 7. Example [5 min]
      • description of an example transposition, work in progress, good for discussion
      • hits data, als 4D (t-rel, x, y, z (of all detectors sic!))
        • time relative to speed of light/muon (how do they call this? why is it like that? how do they imagine this?)
      • 6x 2d projections, scaled and shifted to fix plot (image size, frame - only artists can do that)
      • connect point with its closests point (if any) in each quadrant
      • rationale: initial intension was to infer causal relationships between hit
      • development of drawing algorithms changed intention based on aesthetic experience
      • procedure then applied all projections are
      • open other (distored) views, traces
      • every distorition has the potential to make something potentially significant appear, based on distinctive qualities
      • (we are missing the precise x,y,z of the hit)
    • 8. Conclusions [3 min]
      • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
      • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
      • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what kind of artefacts are produced.
      • but we have just started to understand the data acquisition process (hits, reconstruction)
      • We realise that we need to understand more about technical (apparatus and data conditioning and reconstruction) processes and their relationships
        • in particular we are interested to work with the hits data and the reconstruced data and how these are related.
      • but also we need to understand more of involved thought processes and worlds
      • in particular in which kind of spaces you are thinking and reasoning?
      • which metaphors are you using?
      • which tools do you miss in your work?
      • we think that wuch a better understanding could give us the possibility to (and we are aeger to) produce artefacts which have not only aesthetic valence but which can also afford a retriggering of thinking processes on their side
      • so, we are here today to trigger interest in your group, ask for help in understanding and eventually start collaborations with you.
      • present and invite to final event in Stockholm

    in welchen Räumen denken die? Billiardkugeln, bei der Detektion?

    • Wo sehen sie die Grenzen ihrer Tools? Was hätten sie gerne?
    • Welche Metaphern arbeiten sie? In welcher Welt imaginieren sie, Assymetrien, etc.
    • hope that the artefacts produced by such collision have
      • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
      • Concrete Requests
        • DA TA rush, many questions!
        • 0.1% der Papers
        • Fragen: ästhetische Vorstelltung dessen, was im Detektor passiert
        • Detektoren zeichnen Spuren auf!
        • Daten (hits) von Kalibrieungsprozess
      • want to work with both, maybe the relationship between them, interest us in general (raw/cooked)
        • effects of different stages of interpretation
        • help! - take Lansner interaction as example to explain what we need
      • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
    • 9. Discussion [? min]
    • Rests
      • Why are we at CERN?
        • In our process (DA TA being part of it) we discovered that we could regard our praxis as a sort "destabilisation" of the ideal that data as stable, transparent and inactive component of the research process
        • Data seems as much being an active component in the research process (in that it "influences" the experimental results) as being affected by it (the experimental apparatus is constructed on the very scientific assumptions it wants to answer)
        • And therefore it's interesting for us to better understand and focus in our work on this complex relationship of the data and its context (theoretical, technical as well as social etc.)
        • From this perspective CERN and COMPASS are highly structured, specialised and compartmentalised contexts are for us interesting cultural and social phenomena
        • We have interest in particle physics as one of the more advanced, technically specialised, yet far from the public imaginary
        • Working on such highly abstract and "interpreted" data presents a interesting challenge to our project
        • We want to broaden the spectrum of different case studies we are dealing within the project
        • There were previous private contacts (Giulio)
        • M:
          • collaborations are also arbitrary
          • by chance we managed to work with interesting people / scientists
          • connection (dimensionality, dynamical systems)
          • connectitions possible
          • can never reach depth
          • => wir müssen den Raum stabilisieren
          • Vorstellungsraum, Fehler in Imagination integrieren
          • Entdeckung: man nimmt Störung/Fehler/Noise wahr, bis man versteht, was das ist
            • wenn ein Phänomen nicht kontrollierbar ist, kann heissen, dass es etwas bedeutet
          • nicht nur wie wir mit den Daten umgehen, sondern wie wir mit unserer Rolle umgehen in dem Prozess
      • We do we offer and what do we want
        • We are not looking to offer solution to physical problems (we can't, we don't have the necessary background, that is not our focus)
        • We are here to present our way of thinking as a parallel maybe alternative reasoning process.
        • In a way are trying to cause a collision (:)) our two practices an see what comes around to see what come out.
        • As we will still work on this COMPASS data, out of the "collision" today, we would like to generate interest, maybe some discussion (coffee, dinner) and maybe establish connections and collaborations.
        • Concrete Requests
          • we have started to understand the data acquisition process (hits, reconstruction)
            • DA TA rush, many questions!
            • 0.1% der Papers
            • Fragen: ästhetische Vorstelltung dessen, was im Detektor passiert
            • Wo sehen sie die Grenzen ihrer Tools? Was hätten sie gerne?
            • Welche Metaphern arbeiten sie? In welcher Welt imaginieren sie, Assymetrien, etc.
            • in welchen Räumen denken die? Billiardkugeln, bei der Detektion?
            • Detektoren zeichnen Spuren auf!
            • Daten (hits) von Kalibrieungsprozess
          • want to work with both, maybe the relationship between them, interest us in general (raw/cooked)
          • effects of different stages of interpretation
          • apparatus (as back box)
          • help! - take Lansner interaction as example to explain what we need
        • Present and invite to final event in Stockholm.
      • slide show [2 min]
        • triggerable selfplaying piano
        • wall paintings
        • video work, audio work
  • Causality report
    1. Description of a transposition work in progress an experiment, good for discussion
    2. Hits data
    3. Reinterpreted as 4d data (t and x, y, z of the detectors), all detectors
    4. projected to one of the 6 possible 2d planes.
    5. Scaled and shift to fit image size
    6. Find for each hits the 4 closest neighbouring points (if any) in each direction or quadrants.
    7. Connect this point with the 4 points with a line
    8. The idea was to infer possible causal relationships
    9. The rational:
      • initial intention was to infer possible causal relationships between hits
      • in the process of development of the drawing the idea has been modifyed the based on the aesthetic experience of the drawing themselves
      • Opening of other perspectives of the same data.
      • These are deformations of the space in which the data lives in usually through which maybe other distincitive qualities of the same data.
      • Every deformation has the potential to make something appear potentially significant.

    How:

    1. Show 6 different projections of the same event.
    2. show 6 differnet events of the same projection.

    Questions:

    1. This because we are missing the precise x, y, z coordinates of the hit in the detector.
    2. Where are the wires in the detector?
  • Get visitor card building 33

    <2016-10-13 Thu 09:45>

  • Check in Hostel building 39

    <2016-10-13 Thu 10:20>

  • Call Nicolas Du Fresne 160912

    <2016-10-13 Thu 11:00>

GRZ -> GVA

<2016-10-13 Thu 06:00>–<2016-10-13 Thu 08:45>

GVA -> GRZ

<2016-10-14 Fri 14:00>–<2016-10-14 Fri 18:20>

Transcode Data

  • Notes

    Compile root.

    1. use cmake
    2. mkdir build
    3. cmake-gui ../root/
    4. configure and generate and exit
    5. make -j 8 and wait long long long

    The compile phast with following command line:

    make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/include/ -I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664 or make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/include/ -I/home/david/src/root-6.04.02/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664

    and correct the PHASTHOME issue directly in source files.

    execute: cd /home/david/src/rootgit/build/bin source thisroot.sh

    new line to recompile: make NOFORTRAN=1 NORFIO=1 RELLIBPATH=1 INCLUDE="-I/home/david/src/rootgit/build/include/ -I/home/david/src/rootgit/root/io/rfio/inc/ -I/home/david/src/phast.7.148/lib/" FLAGS="-std=c++11 -fPIC -DNOFORTRAN" -f Makefile.lxplusslc664

    Call with: ./phast -u99 -o eventswithK0.root phastmDST.mc.root ./phast -uN -o someoutputnotimportant.root imputrootfile.root

  • Data
    1. Run is 200 spill. Spill is beam
    2. Particle univoque are mostly only mus
    3. Primary vertex from collision. Secondary from decays
    4. Zlast first
    5. Units cm, GeV, nanoseconds and Tesla
    6. PaTPar are on Vertices come from refit on the vertices
    7. Not all tracks have particles
    8. origin is in the nominal center of the target (plot from skizzo)
    9. time: mean time is with respect to trigger time
    10. Primary vertex is always with beam
    11. Spills?
    12. hits?
    13. Termin CERN?
  • Detectors

    BM = beam momentum station (prima del target) FI = fiber scintillators SI = silicon microstrip MM = Micro Mega GM = GEM DC = saclay drift chambers (time res ~ microsec) ST = Straw tubes (teime res = ?) PA, PB, PS = Multi Wire Proportional Chambers (MWPC) (time res ~ 30 ns) DW = Large Drift chamber (W4-5) (time res ~ microsec) MA,MB = Muon wall A and B (time res ~ 100 ns) HI, HM, HO, HL trigger Hodoscopes (time res ~ ns)

  • Deep Inelastic Scattering

    The data we are looking at is the product of a Montecarlo (MC) simulation of Deep Inelastic Scattering Collisions. These collisions which are simulated are produced at the CERN in the COMPASS laboratory by a high energy (160 Gev) beam of muon (plus) particles colliding with a polarised deuteron target. The Deuteron is the nucleus of the Deuterium atom and is formed by a proton and a neutron.

    Deep Inelastic Scattering in general is used to expose the inner structure of hadrons and in particular protons and neutrons. In the process a high energy electron or muon (a lepton in general) is "shot" at a target consisting of hadrons. The lepton is "scattered" meaning that its trajectory is deflected by some angle. The collision is inelastic in the sense that the target absorbs some of the energy of the incoming lepton in the collision and, at very high energies as in the present case, it is "shattered" emitting many new particles. These emitted particles are in general again hadrons (so protons and neutrons).

    In principle the incoming lepton "knocks-out" quarks which are forming the hadrons. Quarks however cannot be observed directly, due to the quark confinement phenomenon, meaning that quarks always appear in confined states in which they are bound to other quarks connected by gluons. Gluons are the particles that carry the "strong field", the force that holds quarks together forming the hadrons (gluons are the particles carrying the strong force as photons are the particles carrying the electromagnetic force).

    So the hadrons produced and observed in the events, indirectly expose the inner workings of hadrons and of the interaction of quarks in general. The beam needs to be at such high energies so that its wavelength (in quantum physics particles are waves and their energy is inverse proportional to their wavelength, so high energy means short wavelength) is so short in order to be "able" to interact with the very small quarks in the hardons internals.

    In particular in the COMPASS Experiment the focus lies on the understanding of the spin structure of hadrons. There are some unresolved issues connected with spin asymmetries observed in the produced hadrons which cannot be presently explained with the "physics we have".

  • Data Structure

    Looking at the figure on the right roughly depicting the COMPASS experiment setup, the beam is coming in on the target from the left along the Z axis. It interacts with the target where other particles are produced. All the particles then continue to the right entering the area where the detectors are placed.

    The data is organised as follows:

    • Runs: A run is one experimental data collection of many events. It serves as an overall "container" of all the data collected during one session.
    • Spills: The beam of incoming muons is not continuous. The Beam is subdivided in "spills" consisting of "packets" of muons being directed towards the target every fixed time interval. The Beam passing with the target can have zero (it misses the target) to multiple collisions with the target.
    • Event: When the incoming beam collides with the target it triggers one event starting the recording. There is no Event if the beam doesn't interact with the target. Each collision triggers one event and starts the data acquisition. Note that it is possible to observe so-called "pile ups", meaning that in a recorded event there could be more than one beam incoming trajectory producing other collisions or not (missing the target, "flying" far from it a straight through the whole apparatus). These can be distinguished from the other looking at their momentum along the Z axis. If it is very high, near or even equal to 160 GeV, it has to be a beam particle. Other particles produced in the event don't have such high energies.
    • Hits: These are basically the raw data of an event, containing the position in the detectors where a particle has passed (in the form of "hit at filament XY in Layer Z etc.) and at which time. Currently we don't have this data (we will get it soon), as it is not contained in the mDST files we have. mDST stands for "mini DST": these files contain only the reconstructed properties of the event from the hits: trajectories, vertices of interaction, mean times, particles involved. There are files, called "mega DST" which contain all the reconstructed data and the hits. Usually these are not kept for long time for size resons: the mDST files are ca. 1% smaller than the megaDSTs.
    • Trajectories: Applying a fitting algorithm on the Hits, the trajectories of the particles passing through the trackers are reconstructed. These trajectories consists of the "ZFirst" and "ZLast" values which are the first and the last observed Z axis position of the trajectory in the tracked volume. With the ZFirst parameter a vector ("Trajectory Parameter") is associated containing information about the X and Y position the momentum at that point (PX, PY and PZ) and the slope of the trajectory (expressed as dX/dZ and dY/dZ). Further the Trajectory have a "mean time" information, which is the mean of all the Hits times being used for reconstructing the trajectory and is relative to the "trigger time" (zero time). The trigger is activated after some event has activated it starting data acquisition. The data acquisition is started immediately when the trigger is activated, but the trigger time usually needs some more time to be recorded. That means that the mean time of a trajectory can be negative. Note that in the reconstructed data the first trajectory is usually the one of the beam particle.
    • Particles: After another fitting round, particles are associated with the trajectories. The particles have information about their charge (Q) and the particle type (muon or other). Each particle is associated with only one trajectory.
    • Vertices: Another algorithm now cross compares all the reconstructed data and based on the information about the trajectories, momenta, slopes etc. of the particles and their trajectories back-tracing "what happened" before the particles entered in the tracked area. In particular which particle interacted with which other or "appears" at which position (X, Y, Z) called "vertex". Each Vertex has information about the particle's momentum and trajectory slope (Trajectory Parameter) at that point. Vertices can be "Primary" if a particle beam is involved in it or "Secondary" if not. An event can have more than one Primary Vertex.
  • DONE Send lines to Michael, write into reserachcatalogue
  • Hits
    • Da fare:

      vertici in ordine di tempo usa exptrapolate

    • MC Hits che ci sono:

      mDST MChits

      FI04X MM01X DC01X FI05X GM03X ST03X FI06X GM09X ST04X

  • DONE Skizzo Ask
  • Skizzo Skype

    <2015-11-15 Sun 11:00>–<2015-11-15 Sun 16:00>

    • Quantisation
    • X, Y, Z
    • Exceptional events? Use statistics to screen out events?
    • Find out which quantities or qualities of the event are important or wesentlich?
    • Which events are more interesting which are less?
  • Write Skizzo for Vienna Dates

Questions To skizzo:

  1. Time is really from left to right? Could it be different?
  2. knicks? in the beam
  3. CERN Date?
  4. Reserachcatalogue access

Questions 2:

  1. tone in the data (gerhard)
  2. Would you come to Vienna in May?

Mail to spokespersons

Dear …

My Name is Prof. Gerhard Eckel and I'm writing to you as the leader of the research project "Transpositions". We have received your email contact from Mr. Giulio Sbrizzai who is collaborating with us.

I'm writing as in the context of this research project we would like to work with the data from DIS events you have recorded during the COMPASS project.

The project "Transpositions" is an artistic research project funded by the Austrian research fund (FWF) within the Programme of Arts-based Research (PEEK). The research project investigates the possibility of generating new artistic auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and mathematical transformation of scientific data. Case studies from different scientific fields provide data to be transposed by the artists into artistic outputs, which are in turn open to be re-analysed by the scientists. By remaining true to the data while employing an artistic working method and, thus, by combining scientific and artistic values, the project aims to contribute to the conceptual development of a space for research that is shared between art and science. The project team consists of Michael Schwab (University of Applied Arts, Vienna), Gerhard Eckel and David Pirrò (Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics, University of Music and Performing Arts Graz).

With the help of Mr. Sbrizzai we have already started to work on the data produced by Montecarlo Simulations, but it would methodologically important to our project to be able to work with recorded data. Therefore, we would like to ask you if it is possible for us to receive part of data from COMPASS. We will use this data to produce sonic and visual artistic artefacts which we will possibly exhibit publicly (e.g. on the Research Catalogue, https://www.researchcatalogue.net/, an international database for artistic research) and which may inform, in an a subsequent feedback round, scientific analysis and data representation methods. We are interested in both the reconstructed data and the data of the "Hits" recorded by the detectors.

We know that Mr. Sbrizzai already has contacted you in this regard and introduced to you this issue. We wanted to contact you more directly and officially.

We hope to hear from you soon.

Best wishes,

Gerhard Eckel

Questions 3

  • Detector types (the one with ???) in the file ~/ownCloud/TP/data/DIS/test1disdetectorstypes.txt
    • DR -> Rich Walls
    • GP -> Pixel GEM
    • HG -> Trigger
    • HI -> Trigger
    • HL -> Trigger
    • HM -> Trigger
    • HO -> Trigger
    • MA -> Muon Wall A
    • MB -> Muon Wall B
  • 3D Model? x Asks
  • Time resolution: we found out that it matches but there are some which are appear to have different sampling rates? (look at the pdf TheCOMPASSExperiment.pdf) x asks technical coordinator
  • Is the paper above aktuell? x No, but it refers to the data we are receiving
  • When Do we expect the data to be ready? (Time frame!!!!) x
  • Formular abrechnung!
  • How to transform the reference system to be the scatter muon reference system? x
  • Skizzo Skype

    <2016-01-27 Wed 19:00>–<2016-01-27 Wed 20:00>

DONE New DATA

Skizzo 23.03.2016

  1. hits: waiting for reply from CERN
  2. errors
  3. sigma
  4. velocity scaling
  • DONE Mail Michael Vertex

Skype prepare for Mallot, Gerhard, Michael

<2016-07-18 Mon 15:00>–<2016-07-18 Mon 16:30>

Skype Gerhard + Mallot

<2016-07-19 Tue 10:30>–<2016-07-19 Tue 12:00>

CERN, presentations

<2016-10-13 Thu>–<2016-10-14 Fri>

CERN email:

  1. Gerhard Mallot: Gerhard.Mallot@cern.ch
  2. Nicole d'Hose: Nicole.D'Hose@cern.ch
  3. Caroline Riedl: criedl@illinois.edu
  4. Jan Friedrich: Jan@tum.de
  5. Sergei Gerassimov: Sergei.Gerassimov@cern.ch
  6. Nicolas Du Fresne: Nicolas.Du.Fresne.Von.Hohenesche@cern.ch

Transpositions Project @ COMPASS

Dear All,

It was very interesting and inspiring for me to have the possibility to present our work in the project "Transpositions" in the context of your project meeting on 13.10 and get in touch with all of you!

I write to you as I understood from our last meeting in the cafeteria, that you would be most interested in furthering our collaboration, maybe even pursuing new directions.

As we are currently in the process of revisiting and developing further our work on the data of the COMPASS experiment, we would like to keep the contact with you "alive" and maybe exchange ideas and thoughts as we proceed.

Recalling our discussion, I think that at the moment it would be important for us in order to dive deeper into the COMPASS data set, to work on a new data set which, as some of you also proposed, is more recent than the one we are working on currently (2004 data set). Also, it would be important to have a bit more of information about the data itself. So, of this new data set, it would be interesting to have:

  • the hits data per event
  • the corresponding reconstructed data of the event i.e. the reconstructed trajectories and vertices
  • and the "category" of the event i.e. a sort of "tag" which identifies what "kind" of event it is, for example "DVCS" if I recall correctly

Do you think this could be possible to get such data? Consider that, with the help of Giulio, I could get the phast tool to work and I can write specialised User Jobs to extract information. So I can work with root files.

Please let me know if you have also other ideas or suggestions!

I have another issue I would like to address. After our meeting at CERN, I became very clear to us that we would like to have another "round" with you where we would maybe have some more time to show you our work and discuss. All of us would then be present. Our idea would be to have a sort of small "exhibition" of our works at CERN (for example July 2017 seems a good period for us) which we could use as a sort of "point" around which meetings and discussions could take place. Probably it would be best if this would fall into the same period of one of your scheduled Project meetings, so it would be easier for you to be actually present at the time.

Do you think this is possible and feasible?

We are in contact with the Art @ CERN people, who are interested in our project, but unfortunately do not have any space at CERN in which we could exhibit our works. So, I would like to ask you, if you have any rooms or spaces, which we could use for that small exhibition, also because this is primarily intended for your group.

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

Looking forward to your replies.

Best wishes,

David

DONE Write / Call Gerassimov

  • Ask him for coming to Stockholm come on Wednesday

DONE Produce Trajectories video / images

Cosmology

Notes to Recording of Gerhard and Martin

  • Data is of galaxy clusters
  • Data collected from a cosmological survey
    • From an x-ray satellite (XMM-Newton 10 Years)
    • It is the complete archive of the XMM observation
    • Collection of images of x-ray survey in different bands in the range 1- 10 KeV
    • Purpose is to detect extended sources of x-rays, Usually these are galaxy clusters which have a core of dark matter then there is a gas of barions. Gas is hot and rotating around the core, generating Bremsstralung which is the source of the x-rays.
    • Scale of a cluster is ~1-10 Mpc, a Galaxy is in the scale of the ~100 Kpc
    • Software detects possible candidates excluding point sources
    • Measuing the temperature of the x-rays by measuring the spectrum of the x-rays. Is in relation to the temperature of the gas.
    • Measure of the distance of the object via redshift measurement
    • Temperature and redshift and luminosity (first number in the xls) are the more interesting parameters
    • Luminosity is a sort of an average over several images. There are different Luminosity measures over different solid angles.
    • In galactic coordinates where the Milky way is the origin
    • Mapping of redshift to distance is non linear because of the universe expanding
  • How massive are these clusters and at what distance are they.
    • From Temperature you can derive mass
    • What kind of distributions of mass and redshift are predicted from the models? Adapt the cosmological parameters.
    • Matter density ind the university
    • How grainy is the matter distribution in the universe?
  • Homogeneity scale ~100 Mpc
  • Clusters of Galaxies ore place at the intersection of filaments
  • Clusters are less compared to the filaments
  • They are virialised (equilibrium) and therefore can be seen as separated systems

Skype meeting notes

  • Dark matter forms the backbone structure of the universe
  • this structure forms the filaments
  • where the filaments encounter there are galaxy clusters
  • interesting is the also the substructure of the clusters
  • target is to understanding the mass of objects. The distribution of objects as function of mass.
  • "Fundamental noise":
    • There are limitations to the amount of information we can get.
    • We are confined in our information so there is a limit to what we can know about it.
    • The universe we observe would be unlikely of there would not be the inflation. But we don't know how likely inflation is.

DONE Retrieve data to do something!

Genome

Skype meeting notes

  • work on the understanding how the genome (13 billion letters, would be 2 meters) folds (very little) and it has to fold in such way that it turn certain genes on or off (depending on the cell)
  • only 2 - 3% are used to make "codings?"
  • the non coding dna (97%), which are regulating the protein production
  • Looking at the regions which are close to ear other in 3d space.
  • looking at the folded dna (letters which would be far happen to be close). they interact
  • try to find the regulative elements of the protein production
  • The kind of folding is 70% similar in different tissues, but there are details that are very different. Some proteins are important for some cells less for other.
  • they don't measure physical distance, but they measure interaction
  • the observe the effects, the interactions
  • the interactions are not all functional it may be structural
  • non coding-part of genome
  • the main interest for her is cordiovascular disease. they try to find out the specific variations which are in the non-coding part of the genome.
  • the fold it is not an univoque transformation, which may bring near some letters which "should not" be near.
  • resolution is around 600 bases
  • 20.000 genes
  • 100.000 interactions

Work

  1. p - e interaction (apore, bpore)
  2. promoter point before the gene which control switch on or off
  3. enhancers effectively switches the gene
  4. promoters are regions: not really exactly defined: position is apos
  5. achr is number of chormosome apos position, " region" on chromosome
  6. position is only interesting relative to other positions on the same chormosome
  7. enhancers are just fragments not genes: es. 180000 M & N are start and end fragment. L ist the middle
  8. from AB we have r1 and r2 which are different experiments (runs)
  9. read values are the "confidence" if there is effectively an interaction
  10. in iteract.csv are the important fields collected and conditioned
  11. interactions collects how many interactions there are on each specific point a in with which average confidence level (?)

Find clusters: sequences of interaction points which "loop" into themselves

Evaluate "importance" of interaction points.

Explanation Imperfect Video

  • Intro

    This work bases on data of genome folding.

    The DNA molecule is composed by pairs of adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). Genes are portions of the DNA double helix strings which contains the "code" for the production of one specific protein. The whole of the genetic information encoded in the DNA is tightly packed around other proteins called histones forming bigger structures which are the chromosomes, 24 in the human genome and in the data we are dealing with.

    The chromosomes in turn are packed together in a very small space, in a very complex "knot". In this arrangement, parts of a chromosome are interacting or "touching" parts of other chromosomes or of the same chromosome. This interaction is not only due to the very tight packing, it is also functional as these interactions cause the cell in which the DNA is to produce (or not) specific proteins.

    Thus this complex spatial arrangement is of interest to genetic researchers as the understanding how it is generated could lead to an understanding not only of how specific interactions come into place but also how other, "unwanted" interactions could be caused which could be the origin of some of genetic diseases.

  • Data

    The data we have received consists of a list experimentally determined interactions between genes. The list comprises 856552 of such interactions between 482471 positions across the 24 chromosomes. Thus, each recorded position can have multiple interactions with different other positions, meaning it "touches" at the same time different portions of chromosomes.

    The is list thus composed of:

    1. chromosome and position on the chromosome pairs
    2. confidence level of the recorded interaction
    3. type of the gene: promoter or enhance (ignored in the following)
  • Metaphor

    In this work, I have implemented a physically inspired simulation in order to transpose visually the continuous process of knotting of the chromosome strings due to the interactions we have recorded in the data.

    Chromosomes have been simulated as a set of multiple joints corresponding tho the positions in the data. Each of these joints is connected to the previous and the next position on the same chromosome with a binding force, thus the joints form a string or a line. Further each joint is under the effect of a force which pull it toward all other positions (on other chormosomes) with which it interacts.

    For modelling all the interactions, spring-like forces have been used. The joints are modelled as masses under the influence of attrition in order to avoid that possible oscillations could grow to great amplitudes and keeping the whole system in a rather low energy state allowing for convergence to a stable state.

    These masses move and interact in a three dimensional space. In the video below only the projection of the masses position on the x, y plane is used.

    Each time the simulation is started the masses are placed randomly in the space.

    Running the simulation eventually a stable state or a "knot" of chromosomes is found whose spatial structure is informed by the whole network of interactions we have in the data.

  • Conditioning Step

    For the first incarnation of this work, it was necessary to reduce the complexity of the data in order to run the simulation in real-time. Therefore two conditioning steps have been performed on the data before the simulation is run:

    1. the information about the gene positions has been "undersampled", meaning that the chromosomes have segmented into larger segments and all the positions and their interaction in each segment have been condensed in one of the joints in the simulation. Chromosomes have different length, therefore the longest chromosome (number 1) has been first segmented into a maximum number of pieces (32 in the video below) and the segmentation length fixed. The other chromosomes have then after been segmented using this length. Thus the chromosome strings are all composed by a different number of joints.
    2. All the interactions with a confidence level below a threshold (10 in for the video below) have been ignored.
  • Groups

    For the simulation in real-time, not all the interactions between the joints are simulated at the same time. Instead the interactions are switch on between the joints in groups of three (8 of those groups are used for the rendering of the video below). Each of these groups is composed of joints which interact with each other. Joints in these groups are drawn together as their interaction means that they should be near to each other.

    At the beginning the groups are chosen randomly. However, after a certain time or when the area inscribed by the triangle which has the three joints in the group as vertices reaches a small value the group is changed using the following strategy:

    1. At firsts the group consist of 3 joints:
      • A
      • B
      • C
    2. The group is changed in 2 steps:
      • the first is removed and the second and third become first and second
      • A now joint D is added to the group choosing from one of the joints the second joint (now C) interacts with. So the new group is now:
        • B
        • C
        • D
    3. After some time or when the joints are near enough the group is again changed removing B and inserting joint E from the joint with which D interacts with:
      • C
      • D
      • E

    etc.

    As a result, these groups of "crawl" through the whole network always pulling interacting joints towards each other in a continuous knotting of the whole network of chromosome-strings.

  • Video

    In the video the joints on the same chromosome are jointed by a white line. The white strings correspond to the chromosomes

    Groups are rendered graphically in the video below as white triangles.

    The video frame is always adjusted to the maximum x and y positions of the joints. This means that the image is always zoomed such to hold all the joints. Further, while the structure gets more and more dense and smaller this dynamic zoom adjustment acts as a adaptive magnification factor on the forming knot.

  • Video 1

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 32 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 8364 interactions per joint.

  • Video 2

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 64 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 7994 interactions per joint.

  • Video 3

    The video on the left is a recording of the knotting process simulated using a maximum of 128 joints for the chromosome strings and a confidence level threshold of 10, leaving us with a maximum of 7064 interactions per joint.

Knots

  • Intro

    Following the metaphor of self-knotting strings explained in Strings, a physical model of linked joints (or masses in the following) has been used to model the chromosomes. Each mass is connected to the previous and the next with a force that keeps them at an equal distance. The forces acting here are of spring-like type and attracting, keeping the string together. The distance d = 0.1 used in the simulation has no correspondence with the real data.

    A second spring-like type force acts on the next-to-next and previous-to-previous masses from each mass. This force is repulsive and keeps this masses at a distance which is greater than 2.0 d. The function of this force is to avoid that the strings make too tight angles: angles between three joints tighter than 90 degrees are so, very unlikely.

    A third force attracts each joint to the joint(s) with which it has a recorded interaction. This force is thus attractive and gravitational-like. Due to the effect of this force the chormosome-strings begin to form a knot while trying to minimise the distances with the joints (either on the same chromosome string or on others) with which they interact.

  • Conditioning

    As explained in (link), the data of genome folding / interactions has been conditioned in two steps:

    1. chromosomes has been segmented into equal size pieces: information about position interactions have been therefore "undersampled": position interactions information falling into one of these segments has been condensed on the one joint representing that segment.
    2. interactions with confidence level below 10 have been ignored.
  • Simulation

    The simulation of this knotting process is computationally very intensive and long. Further, order, to keep the whole system stable, the magnitude of "knotting" force is slowly increased each time the energy of the whole system falls below a certain threshold, i.e. the joints are less active and have reached a stable configuration. The whole process thus mimics a simulated annealing algorithm (link).

    The process is stopped when the mean deviation of the optimum distance between interacting joints falls below 0.008 and the mean kinetic energy is below 0.01.

  • Exhibit 1: test

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 64 pieces per chromosome

  • Exhibit 2: test

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 128 pieces per chromosome

  • Exhibit 3

    Video rendering of the annealing process for a segmentation of maximum 256 pieces per chromosome. The process has been stopped with:

    1. mean energy 3.816983773934539E-003
    2. mean deviation from optimal distance 6.726344386506080E-003
    3. maximum distance deviation between interacting joints: 2.86511037208726
    4. mean distance of joints on same chromosome (a measure of the integrity of the chromosome strings): 0.106353053945251 (0.1 is optimal)
  • obj

    energy difference 2.562347487377649E-003 ICpull 3.496063128113747E-002 mean dvar 4.364636821724464E-003 icn 2656 ccd 0.106343580553791 max dist IC 0.199361766042406 max dist in Chr 0.152976706611594 finished annealing with dist var 4.364636821724464E-003

  • DONE Condition new data

Reflections

Michael

24 08 2015 Michael

We may have idealised the collaborative process in our project application. Outside of data representations and transpositions, TP is very much also a project that investigates transdisciplinary modes of collaboration. In this sense, the notion of ‘transposition’ also indicates a gap between fields or disciplines with risks attached. For example, how far into the territory of the scientific side do we venture? During case study 1, we have perhaps been too much preoccupied with questions to do with ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ understandings of both the scientists’ data and research context. Why did we find it so difficult to let go of these ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ at an earlier stage?

In TP we constructed the scientists as our first audience. We expected for them to also see something in our work, so somewhere, the representational mode needed to stay intact, which became particularly clear in moments when we realised that, for example, we misinterpreted the data format and where looking at and listening to ‘nonsense’. Who we choose to be our first audience (or how we imagine it), has a lot of impact. Although we showed our outputs during the seminar, I feel I am not done with the case study since I haven’t created the kind of objects that I can relate to, which is a moment where a different materiality (not representing data but presenting materials) becomes important. Together with the other case studies, this has to happen now at the very end (which is not a bad thing).

The risk is to cut the avenue into the scientific data off too soon, so that no real understanding of the data can happen to the degree that even the data format may be misunderstood resulting in nothing but white noise. So it is clear, that one needs to push while being aware of the resources that are limited. Beyond this is not a smooth space of ‘artistic practice’; I feel that one needs structured chains (Latour) to convert information. For example, we may have 4 clearly separated types: (1) understanding data (2) calibrating instruments (coding) (3) making and presenting work (4) reflecting back. Crucial: each has its own setting with its own ‘budget’, so, for example, when we meet for work presentation, we stop being side tracked by debates about the data or the code; we would also create adequate settings: audio/video projection & longer times or experience. All 4 types could require 25% of time resources, so no overspending to the detriment of other types.

I don’t know. This is really a rather helpless attempt to be sharper about the real problems that we face in the project, which are not only in the data but also in the conditions and structures of TP itself. I am thinking of the kind of work Florian Dombois has developed in his ‘palavers’ (http://floriandombois.net/works/palaver.html ) (which I never attended): a palaver happens in an organised, split space in which by being at a particular location, one also plays a particular role. For example, we could think about a way to ‘stage’ Gerhard’s ‘process model’ – I would like to see as one ‘output’ of TP an ‘imaginary manual’ in which each stage is focussed on with regard to its function but also with regard to the kind of aesthetics that it affords and the mode in which we want to engage those. In other words, a better conceptual grip on the working situation allowing for a better repositioning of who we are during the process that is TP.

David

Yes, I share Michael's observation about the late letting go of "right" or "wrongs". I guess we were a bit too concerned in making it "right" for our first audience, the scientists. Maybe in order to justify our project in their eyes? I think that also the fact that we had so many misunderstanding for such a long time span regarding the data, what is in there, how to read it, how the data is stored that this also limited our action possibilities. If we are continuously correcting our understanding of the data and consequently re-adapting our instruments and re-formulating our reflection, this leaves us with very little energy (and time) for developing an own stance to it. We should, and we are already, approach this differently in the next case study.

A structured chain of information "conversion" how Michael proposes may be of help. Still, I'm concerned by the fact that these stages are inherently strongly interconnected. At least from my perspective or approach, being maybe more near to the instruments making, every reflection or new understanding of the data has an immediate effect an the coding part. I noticed in our meetings that it may be difficult for me to remain on one specific "stage" as Michael defines them. They seem inextricably intertwined. And I ask myself if this aspect (the intertwining of processing stages) is a characteristic of the work we do, which makes it different to how scientists work. Well, let's say, maybe we are in the position of acknowledging it explicitly, more than scientists are able to.

As a critique to myself, I think that I have probably driven myself in certain moments into the position of the instrument maker, retiring maybe more from other stages of the process. This caused in some moments a sort of frustration on my side. But I see, this was not intended by anyone in the project. I think I did it all by myself, maybe driven by preceding experiences or personal attitude. I also perceive that this has changed a bit for me and I'm pleased by this change of "behaviour"…

An observation connected to the previous comment is also the following. It is a fact that we all three come from different backgrounds, use different "languages" and tool sets to express ideas and thought and realise things. Therefore it seems natural that each of us takes a particular position within the project, taking care more of one stage than of another. Still we are, undoubtedly, interacting, talking to each other and realising things together. I find this situation very interesting even if it can be difficult to understand each other. And actually it seems very productive: even misunderstandings seem productive. It is a sort of "collision" in a sense, which ends up producing new states. Also, this interaction between us, and I think this is also clear, is has an effect on each of us, modifying our way of working an expressing ourselves to each other. In some way we are re-negotiating our positions.

An aspect I would like to underline which has crystallised from our work on the first case study is the aspect of "locality". I refer for example to the n-dimensional viewer where, in its first implementation, the exact representation of local relationships was privileged over an inexact (or even impossible) global view. But I think also of Gerhard's sonifications of the single spiking events in the network. The "zooming in" and dilatation of phenomena versus the classical scientific approach that uses statistical methods which are actually smoothing out all local, short timed or small spaced aspects of the observed object. I think this way of looking at the data is particular to our work. For scientists these aspects apparently do not have any "meaning" within their theories. Talking about the data of the COMPASS experiment, Giulio said it clearly to me that actually looking at the traces or characteristics of one single event, is absolutely meaningless (his words) for physicists. Only the statistics over hundred-thousands of events is interesting. One event "could be anything, doesn't mean nothing". I think that saying one event is "something" which has (has to have) a relationship with all the other events, and asking how this relationship looks like or sounds like, I think this could be an interesting perspective to take when relating to the scientists. Maybe this is "meaningless", but still they should be able to relate this perspective to their view and here, I feel, they are often put on a shaky terrain. They feel they should be able to "explain" those localities, but often they can't.

Gerhard

Michael2

David2

  • Notes

    We are "doing" to little!

Conference

Ideas

Dates

  • Preparation
    • Stockholm, preparation DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-28 Thu>

    • Stockholm, preparation DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-29 Fri>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-09-30 Sat>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-01 Sun>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-02 Mon>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-03 Tue>

    • Stockholm, setup DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-04 Wed>

  • Conference
    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-04 Wed>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-05 Thu>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual

      <2017-10-06 Fri>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual, rig sown

      <2017-10-07 Sat>

    • Stockholm, DA TA eventual, rig down, back to Graz

      <2017-10-08 Sun>

Exhibition AIL

<2016-05-10 Tue>–<2016-05-18 Wed>

Inflatable transport IEM

<2019-06-13 Thu 12:00>–<2019-06-13 Thu 14:00>

Get Jackfield Tischler

<2016-04-29 Fri 08:30>–<2016-04-29 Fri 09:00>

Gerhard, AIL planning

<2016-04-19 Tue 09:00>–<2016-04-19 Tue 12:00>

Gerhard, Skype AIL Planning, ask LE and TP

<2016-04-21 Thu 10:00>–<2016-04-21 Thu 11:00>

Gerhard Feedback Tests, Master Patch, Prepare Linux, CUBE

<2016-04-29 Fri 13:00>–<2016-04-29 Fri 16:00>

Symposium

<2016-05-17 Tue>

Ideas

  1. Talk to Michele (David): He will,
    1. implement the triggers with arduinos.
    2. set up the arduinos wifi network
    3. realise the laser-water-reflection seismograph
    4. realise the 10x10 = 100 6,3mm jack connection field
    5. he should start immediately with the arduino triggers and the laser-water-seismograph and have something to show us until the 16.12.
    6. Meeting with him, David and Gerhard is on that day from 09:00 to 10:30
    7. Possibly he could also come to Vienna in February to the AIL Gallery when we test things
  2. Testing in February at the AIL
    1. fix one date for the tests in place (Gerhard). Our preferred date is on the 15.02. If not possible find out if we can get in one or more days in the week before, before the opening hours, before 11:00.
    2. we will test:
      1. Acoustics: Sweep every room and record from every room.
      2. Monitors: Test how we can control them: via Network? (David)
      3. Laser-water-seismograph
    3. Organisation: possibly organise to come with a car as we will have to transport the whole tracking system anyway.
  3. Thoughts about the exhibition
    1. the whole exhibition should behave as a whole dynamical system
    2. visualisation of this dynamical system? Maybe done using the line integrals technique (David)
    3. the reflection of the laser from the water surface should appear on a wall (possibly the wall where the window to the offices is).
    4. the reflection is "framed" within a square
    5. use a webcam and then background subtraction to extract information about the vibrations
      1. for direct audification
      2. or for control input or excitation force for the whole exhibition dynamical system
    6. the "sonic" installations should be heard not only in the room they are in but should also "mix" with the other installations in the other rooms. So if one is in one room the visitor would also hear a mixture of the others playing, reacting, therefore we need acoustic measurements.
    7. Artemis will realise something with the cosmology data in the "cinema", black cube, space
    8. time based installations have a trigger (realised with arduino). Activating the trigger inputs an excitation in the single installation activating it, but has also an effect on the whole exhibition
    9. 10x10 jack field:
      1. used with headphones
      2. actually it is a single stereo signal which is played.
      3. sensing which plug is being connected will change the file being played.

Ideas 2

  • Reactive exhibition, triggered from outside
  • Time-based installations are triggered: audio and video
  • Installation classes:
    • Actuators and Sensors or both
  • Input is something like noise. Tram and Visitors are a sort a noise source.
  • The reaction of the whole installation is a sort of "impulse response"
  • The dynamical system which connects the elements is visualised?
  • The way of thinking we have developed in the transpositions informs the way in which the exhibition is planned and showed
  • Connection between mass and energy (velocity): gravitational forces
  • Matrix ideas
  • Matrix of loudspeakers is in room 4 in centre towards the top

CEUS Details

  1. There is combo box (separate machine, other than the one under the piano) and
  2. MIDI default delay is 200 ms: not possible to go further down

DONE Preparations for tests in place [3/3]

  • [X] Acoustic measurements
    • We are measuring the acousting couplings between different rooms
    • We measure with DPAs (Gerhard) with own head
    • Audio interface (M-audio usb)
    • [X] Aliki (ask Martin): get source, compile, run
    • Loudspeaker (Genelec) + cables long ones (xlr and power) and microstativ
    • Loudspeker always indirect
    • Record in every room sweeps from every other room
    • [X] Measure system latency: 15.719 ms
      • Naming convention: eg = ground floor ug = basement eg1 = towards metro = 1 eg2 = piano position = 2 eg3 = matrix position (in between) = 3 eg4 = backwards = 4 ug1 = blackhole = 5 ug2 = in between = 6 ug3 = long backwards = 7 starting from third measurement we have 2 measurements each
  • [X] Monitors:
    • Clear if we can use them (Gerhard).
    • [X] Model: SONY No. KDL-42W805B get user's manual
    • [X] Check playback possibilities (usb stick)
    • [X] Control over Network?
    • Mounting? Which possibilities?
    • ethernet cable, USB stick with videos
    • Notes
      1. controlURL http://192.168.0.102/sony/IRCC (or just IRCC)
      2. port 52323
  • [X] Check WLAN
    • [X] Repeater and Router (Ask IOhannes which is good)
      • Ask IOhannes how many reapeater is possible and good to have, maybe buy two
  • [X] Check laser seismograph (Michele)
    • Buy laser with power supply (as small as possible)
    • Construct the mirroring thing (microstativ + stereo shienen)
    • Metal mirror
    • Liquid flat and big, diffuse underground for testing
    • Blob tracking
      • 10 x 10 pixel Matrix
      • Done with laptop webcam (test)
      • Done in processing, possibly display the matrix an laptops' monitor
      • Output over OSC on WLAN
      • [X] Processing code on the ownCloud share with Michele (David)
    • [X] In Vienna capture video of the laser on the wall and of the water surface
    • Blob tracking (x y positions list /blob/1/x,y etc) + Pixel matrix 9x9 oder 10x10 (adjustable)
  • [X] Installation network
    • Central organising machine (receiving and sending triggers)
    • Take mac mini + monitor and keyboard (David)
    • Columns: do we build them?
    • Emergency buttons (get it from post)
    • Button is connected to a specific pin: the number of the pin is the message id
    • [X] WLAN access point (IOhannes) (David)
    • [X] Ethernet shield (David + Arduino)
    • [X] power supply for both arduino and access point
    • Central pc has fixed IP address known to all arduinos
    • access points get IP over DHCP
    • columns wooden with metal foot, open in just one side in the lower part. metal foot with 4 soft plastic foots
  • [X] Transport check with Michele (David)
  • [X] Measure space
    • [X] get laser disto
    • [X] 5 meter rollmass
  • Equipment List AIL [0/0]
    • [ ] dpa Gerhard + cables (XLR adapter?)
    • [ ] Genelec loudspeaker + microstativ
    • [ ] 3 very long power cable extensions
    • [ ] 1 jack -> xlr adapter
    • [ ] 3 very long xlr cables
    • [ ] 3 xlr microphone cables
    • [ ] 1 network cable
    • [ ] Wlan router and repeater
    • [ ] laser seismograph:
      • [ ] microstativ + stereo schiene
      • [ ] laser
      • [ ] mirror
      • [ ] netzteil for laser
      • [ ] water recipient
      • [ ] laptop for tests (Michele)
    • [ ] arduino trigger
    • [ ] laser disto
    • [ ] 5 meter rollmass
  • DONE Pack Tracking + Petersgasse (Michele)
  • DONE Test + pack Loudspeakers amps and cables (Michele)
  • DONE Study the monitors thing

Michele, AIL Preparations

<2015-11-30 Mon 17:00>–<2015-11-30 Mon 18:00>

Michele, Trigger

<2016-03-14 Mon 10:00>–<2016-03-14 Mon 12:00>

Michele, Gerhard, tests

<2015-12-16 Wed 09:00>–<2015-12-16 Wed 10:30>

Artemis, Gerhard

<2015-12-01 Tue 11:00>–<2015-12-01 Tue 12:00>

Measurements AIL

<2016-02-14 Sun 08:00>–<2016-02-14 Sun 12:00>

Skype Gerhard Michael

<2016-02-14 Sun>

CEUS, Artemis, Vienna

<2016-03-17 Thu 07:25>

CEUS, Bösendorfer, Artemis

<2016-04-08 Fri 07:25>

DONE Multiplexer, CD74HC4051

<2016-02-03 Wed 09:00>–<2016-02-03 Wed 09:30>

DONE For AIL Exhibition [1/1]

  • [X] jackfield (Michele)
    • 10 x 10, big jack, stereo, with switching logic (arduino)
    • Arduino reads position of inserted jack
    • with jacks with switches

DONE Send email for CEUS Tests in Vienna

DONE Send mail Gerhard Jackfield

DONE Get Artnet to DMX MUMUTH

<2016-04-20 Wed 10:15>–<2016-04-20 Wed 10:30>

DONE Fix CEUS 28.04, Bösendorfer

Bösendorfer, Artemis

<2016-04-27 Wed 07:25>

DONE For Exibition [11/11]

  • [X] AIL Gerhard check
    • [X] see if video monitor can be mounted portrait
    • [X] Check usb playback directly from usb stick
  • [X] Aggregat Keys
    • [X] Modify neuro patches for MIDI
    • [X] Decide if MIDI or osc
  • [X] Aggregat Video
    • [X] 12 USB 3 Sticks
    • [X] Parameter of 9 Videos?
    • [X] Proposition: 3x3 Video of existing parametrisations (Gerhard, David, Michael) subdivided in N (12 for ex) clips, with short fade in and fade out then white for 30 minutes
    • [X] How long are the videos? 1 Minute?
    • [X] copy on the sticks only the videos which are played?
    • [X] Switches, cables, and power cables extensions
    • [X] Prepare shell script
    • [X] 9 fix IPs
  • [X] Aggregate Headphones
    • [X] Jackfield, Michele
    • [X] 9x9!
    • [X] dimensions are dependent of hardware
    • [X] aluminium plate, holes ca. 4 - 5 cm. border + 4 cm (as holes) at least, black jacks, mdf plates (10 - 15 cm)
    • [X] Invoice an Gerhard, Inffeldgasse
    • [X] low table
    • [X] 81, soundfiles
  • [X] Aggregate Loudspeakers
    • [X] Loudspeaekr systems
  • [X] Aggregate Hammer
    • [X] Wood Buy
    • [X] Gerhard brings metal Ls
    • [X] Cablebinder
    • [X] Arduino programming
    • [X] Cables
    • [X] Ask Giulio how to reduce? Ask about how the software reduces, filters? Maybe based on Velocities?
  • [X] Aggregate Feedback
    • [X] Test in IEM
    • [X] 2 Mikros and 2 Subwoofers
    • [X] Cross Connected
  • [X] Aggregate Bulbs
    • [X] Finish and parametrise Dynamical System
    • [X] Dimmer Test
    • [X] Prepare patch for dimmer control
    • [X] Buy Bulbs + Fassung + cabel (shuko)
    • [X] Artnet to dmx from MUMUTH
  • [X] Wall graphics
    • [X] Parameters of neuro?
    • [X] svgs?
  • [X] Rebody
    • [X] Michael, sony cube?
    • [X] DVD player IEM + headphones (closed AKG)
  • [X] Windkanal
    • [X] Which Videos
      • [X] Video Michael
      • [X] Video Gerhard
      • [X] How? Together?
      • [X] Audio over subwoofer?
    • [X] Wall is the wall in Aggregat Hammer last Wall

Exhibition Stockholm

TODOs

  • KMH Gerhard

    <2017-09-28 Thu 16:30>

  • DONE Ask Gerhard for maps and info for participants
  • DONE Gerhard Facebook event?
  • Audiorama Testing and setup

    <2017-10-02 Mon 16:00>–<2017-10-02 Mon 22:00>

  • DONE Test M64 avb with daniel petersgasse
  • DONE Send MOTU to Gerhard
  • DONE Ask stefan for avb motu m64
  • DONE Send Jackfield to Gerhard

    <2017-07-03 Mon 10:00>

  • DONE Raspi get to work alone
  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-05-05 Fri 15:30>–<2017-05-05 Fri 16:00>

  • Marian, Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-03-21 Tue 14:00>–<2017-03-21 Tue 14:30>

  • Meeting Marian, Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-03-14 Tue 14:00>–<2017-03-14 Tue 14:30>

  • DONE Ask IOhannes and Markus about tests with wilma
  • DONE Prepare page on COMPASS

    See template at: https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/94538/329573

    • priamry upper media element photo inflatabel + audio Gerhard
    • A bit of text to the case study. not complex stuff. little about the thing itself (DIS), more about what we are interested in, the apparatus and the difficulty of knowing where and when we are
    • Text

      Scattering describes the process in which a particle with high energy called beam collides with another, the target. In the deep inelastic scattering the energy of the beam is so high that the target breaks apart revealing its constituting elements. Usually, in physics, the collection of the smaller, maybe simpler, parts something can be broken into is said to be its "spectrum". Very much like when we speak of the spectrum of a sound when we calculate which sum of single frequencies it equals to.

      At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing and understanding the characteristics of the spectrum of the proton, a primary building block of atoms and of the all matter with which we can interact with. A very high energy beam of elementary particles called muons (a type of heavier electrons) collides with the target protons which breaks into its spectrum, the quarks. These spray into the 50 meter long spectrometer, where they cause effects which could be detected.

      In opposition to the somewhat childish but seemingly effective strategy to analyse something by breaking it into pieces to see 'how it works', stands the fact that in this case the products of this breaking apart remain actually ineffable. These touch into the very essence of the problematic mode of existence of the quantistic world, being bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty. To shine on how the indeterminacy of these processes seems to infect the whole apparatus of the COMPASS experiment is the focus of this case study. As apparatus we intend not only the spectrometer as a measuring device, but the whole aggregate of scientific theories, technical tools and social interactions the experiment is embedded into. In particular we observe how the "reconstruction" process, mediated by multiple steps of re-interpretation and interpolation of the data, is not only a necessary step of analysis, but also a generative transformation which produces new forms.

      • Rests

        The spatial and temporal sensibility seems to drag the instruments' themselves into a grey zone from which it is apparently not possible to know exactly where and when they are. Further, the extreme specialisation and compartmentalisation (in conjunction with the competition under different research groups) makes it very difficult to understand which analysis and reconstruction processes are applied and which effect these have on the data.

        Problem with analysis sum of parts = obejct

        neutrality of data?

        data are facta?

        indeterminacy is interpolation is generative

        dynamical system as complexification

        fragmentary / sand / non-haptic

    • DONE Write about the metaphor of how the work with COMPASS was

      Our experience of working together with CERN's researchers bears some particularities.

      The utter specialisation and compartmentalisation of the researchers causes an extreme fragmentation. As with the fragments produced by the collision events, it is difficult to get a hold on concrete and definitive statements. In conjunction with the marked competition between the different research groups and even within the same group, the reconstruction of how analysis and interpretation processes are used and what significance these have on the data, is a too complex task. Most data conditioning and analysis algorithms are used mostly as block boxed functions by the researchers.

      The spatial and temporal sensibility of the instruments, which are almost required touch into Heisenberg's uncertainty regions of space-time, seems to drag the instruments' themselves into a grey zone of existence: it seems apparently not possible to know exactly the wheres and whens of things. Included are, for example, the positions in space and time of the particle collisions passages as well as the positioning of same detectors within the spectrometer.

      Uncertainty and abstractness is not only a quality of quantistic processes, it apparently permeates every dialogue. Extreme caution is taken in order to avoid formulations which might reveal too much confidence.

      Only a statistic of inquiries will produce a measurable response.

      In some way the impression is that the qualities of the phenomena affect the way of thinking and working of the researchers studying them.

      • Rests

        functionality of the undeterminacy

    • DONE Causality

      We are provided with data containing approximate time and positions of detected particle passages through the detector. These space-time positions are called hits. A set of hits is contained in every detected collision event, recording the passage of the fragments of the broken proton. Our data set contains thousands of those events.

      We are left alone with this material, a collection of points placed in a four dimensional space which is mostly void. To bridge the gaps and navigate through the emptiness a rule of relationship if inferred; a rule of "causality" defining which points are interdependent from each other. This rule is an assertion, emerging from of the uncomfortable situation of not knowing where and when things are. It results in a function which joins points, interpolating between them, structuring a space: its reiterated application is a generating function which produces coherence and form.

      The transposition is constructing figures as well as finding them in the material it is applied to. Therefore, even if it is an isomorphism, it's action is not neutral: this characteristic which is of all transformative functions becomes evident when it departs from canonical i.e. accepted interpretations of what lies "behind" the data or how it should be read.

      Each hit is connected with a line to the nearest other along each of the 8 directions in the four dimensional space-time. The process is repeated for each event.

      Eventually a series of thousands of figures are drawn which collect the traces of the application of this function this data.

      This is the projection of the x-t plane of the figure generated for the event 5252 in spill 198

      • Rests

        data inexistent without being read

        In the attempt of the construction of a figure out of fragments, a rule of relationship is inferred, a law of "causality".

        The meaning is the operation itself. The form generating interpolating function. The fact the the interpolation, the inferrence of relationships which bridge the void space between points the reiterated application of this function generates form, produces coherence, meaning.

        establishing relationships produces figures. active, non neutral, part of the transformation points to lines to figure a system is

        bridge the void

        iterative application, the repeated computation

        what it says is not more than what it is

    • DONE find background links for the compass page

      4 - 5

      1. https://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/tracking/dc/experts/Drift_Chamber__Principle_of_operation.html#drift
      2. https://www.particlezoo.net/
      3. http://wwwcompass.cern.ch/compass/publications/papers/cern-ph-ep_2007-001/compass_spec_070330.pdf
      4. chart_2006_4.jpg
    • DONE determine which event links are relevant to compass
    • Lansner Gerhard

      Computational neuroscience is the study of the peripheral and central nervous system by simulation and emulation of neural tissue. Neurons are cells specialized in chemical and electrical communication. They form large networks in the central nervous system – the brain. It is assumed that the brain does not work in terms of algorithms but instead operates as a complicated network of interconnected dynamic nodes. About two thirds of the human brain consist of the cortex, which is responsible for functions such as flexible thinking, impulse inhibition, and several forms of memory. The data used in this case study was generated in simulations aiming at discovering principles of memory storage that are compatible with known cortical anatomy and dynamics. More particularly this concerns the dynamics of mechanisms enabling the storage and recall of memories. The work at the Lansner lab focuses on attractor networks, which have interesting computational capabilities and are based on a learning principle that is compatible with biology.

      The focus of this case study was a data set tracing the activities of a trained network of 2430 neurons exhibiting spontaneous self-activation of stored memory patterns. The network is organised in nine populations of neurons, each representing a pattern. Usually memory recall is triggered by external simuli but this network remembered (activated) the stored patterns spontaneously. This attracted our curiosity, especially concerning the sequence of activation, which priviledged certain patterns. What kinds of dynamics may be at play that make the network string its associations together in this sequence? We approached the question by observing the correlation variations of a selection of 9 representative neurons per pattern, resulting in a 81-dimensional coefficient space. Then we developed a dynamical system to reduce this space to two dimensions, which formed the basis for the dynamic visualisation. The synchronous sonification is based directly on the neuronal activities, creating a complementary perspective on the behaviour of the network.

  • DONE Explain DS of AIL
    • with graphic?
    • with animation?
    • animation of masses as in sc (with colour)
    • Text

      A set of triggers are distributed in the DaTa Rush exhibition. When pressed by the visitors, they activate in the installation they are near to. Also, on some installations can be acted upon directly, like on the field of headphone plugs or on the piano. But the effect of this action is not limited to this local effect.

      The simulation of dynamical system is part of the exhibition. This system is composed by seven interacting masses resembling a very simple mechanical approximation of a string.

      There is a correspondence between a node in the system and its energy with one of the works in the exhibition and its activity. Pressing a trigger will give a push to the associated mass, exciting it and inducing an energy growth which, in turn, is reflected by the installation's action or reaction.

      A microphone hanging from the ceiling picks up the sounds in the gallery as well as the vibrations coming from the street just outside the gallery, e.g. the trembling produced by the passing trams. According to the energy of all these oscillations and resonances, one node in the string pushed an pulled.

      A trigger, an action on the installations or a loud vibration in the gallery will not only excite one of the masses, it will also inject energy into the whole system. As all elements are interconnected by their reciprocal interactions, energy will propagate through the nodes and therefore through the exhibition space. Each action will not remain local: it will spread and leave a trace, possibly causing other installations to react at a later time.

      Metaphorical and actual connections are drawn between the works, the gallery space and the external world as the whole exhibition reveals itself as a system which senses and unfolds, continuously reweaving and regenerating itself. The evolving state of the dynamical system i.e. the energy in each of its nodes, is transposed into the glowing of the bulbs in the dark room in the basement of the gallery, in the "belly" of the exhibition.

      The dynamical system is inspired by the model used of the so-called Fermi-Pasta-Ulam experiment (1953) which has a particular relevance in the history of science. The experiment consists of the simulation of a system of masses placed on a string where the connecting forces contain a non-linear term in addition to a linear (spring-like) force. Due to this term the system is analytically unsolvable, i.e. there is no mathematical tool by which the behaviour its can be described (and therefore predicted) by any well formulated equations. The only possibility to observe its evolution is to simulate it, to compute the movement of all the masses time step after time step. This operation would take an enormous amount of time for a human, but not for a machine. Therefore, the three researchers devised an algorithm which recursively integrates the equations of motion of the system, computing the new positions of all the nodes at very small time steps and programmed it on the MANIAC I, the computer they had at their disposal at the Los Alamos facilities where they where working.

      There was no particular scientific interest in such system at that time. The researchers just had some "spare time" and they had this new tool (the computer) at their disposal: so they did something with it which couldn't be done otherwise. And they where surprised. The evolution of the system did non conform to known rules; instead its behaviour followed previously unseen and unpredictable paths. These observations gave birth to new theoretical perspectives and laid the groundwork for what later will be chaos and complexity theory, one of the most important fields of study a cross many research fields nowadays.

      This was a pioneering experiment also with regard to the methods which it used. In fact, it is the first experiment where the computer played a central role in the development or falsification of theories. It was the first time that an algorithm and its the recursive computation was used as a theoretical speculative tool: it was the beginning of computational physics, the so-called "third way" of doing research, between theoretical and experimental physics.

    • Rests

      It does not offer one specific static chosen perspective: as it is in continuous movement there is a sort of undeterminacy.

      afford a

      it acts on the space it is part of

      site specific

      draws connections towards external

      It becomes part of the space it lives in the gallery the whole gallery space is part of the system,

      the state of the system is reflected by the state of the exhibition as a whole

      drawing connections into the nearby street where the passing trams

      is part

      the interconnection

      Further, acting on some of installations, e.g. pressing a key of the piano or

      Tram passing by

      Some of the installtions

      The time based installations of DaTa Rush exhibition

  • DONE Explain DS of Lansner
    • with different example parametrisations videos
    • text as much as I need (pop overs?, not important)
    • behaviour
    • interpolating function
    • complexification
    • relation to indeterminacy?
    • Text

      One of the data sets we worked with in this case study is two hundred seconds of activity of a simulated neural network undergoing memory recall processes. This particular neural network simulation was of particular interest to us as it revealed an inherent behaviour which manifested itself in the spontaneous, i.e. without external stimuli, self-activation of the stored memory patterns.

      Seeking ways to grasp this behaviour we focused on the mutual relationships or interdependence nodes have with each other across the network by computing the value of correlation of their activities. These values, calculated for each pair of the 81 neurons in the network, constructs a multidimensional structure which evolves, folding and unfolding in time. This abstract structure is placed in a space whose dimensions express the relationship between all possible node pairs (81! = 81*80*79*….*2*1).

      In order to visualise this structure we searched for an operation which would transform a high dimensional object into a two dimensional figure. To this end, we devised another dynamical system, which would accomplish this specific task in an iterative process. This system is formed by 81 mutually interacting masses placed on a plane, one for each neuron. The magnitude of the force each mass pair is subject to reflects the correlation value that neuron pair has: higher correlations means greater attraction and therefore smaller distances. A set of correlation values of the neural network activity would cause simultaneously all of the masses to move and search positions whose relative distances to all other masses corresponds to that node's relationship to all other nodes. Similarity and interdependence are transposed into geometrical distance relationships. Eventually the dynamical system will result in an arrangement of the masses which reflects the best possible two dimensional approximation of the multi-dimensional structure, constructing a figure which folds and unfolds in time.

      Mathematically, solutions of this operation, if any, are mostly non-unique: the task the dynamical system is set to take on is a hard problem. And when the system is pushed to the limits of its capabilities to interpolate between the two spaces, these difficulties become evident and the non-neutrality of the operation we are performing clear. The dynamical system suddenly becomes material. It evolves from a problem solving, dimension reducing or simplifying operator and reveals itself as form generating agent; pushing back. Its distinct own behaviour becomes apparent.

      In the end we find ourselves dealing with a more complex situation: two interacting and inextricably interwoven dynamical systems whose responsibilities in the result cannot be exactly separated. Clearly we formulated a transposition into a complexification, whose principal value lies less in the reduction function or in the calculation of an output, but in bringing to light qualities of such systems which are inherently incalculable.

      We shed light on this situation by looking at it from different perspectives: we find multiple parametrisations for the forces and the figure's visual rendering. The result is a field of figures, artefacts whose mutual relationships constructs a network through which incomputable qualities of the involved elements shimmer through.

      • Rests

        as an incompressible surplus of the simulation.

        The search of the best possible approximation, parameters of the model and its visual rendering need to be continuously re-adjusted. Changes in these parameters have a dramatic effect on the stability of the

        And in questioning our basic assumption that phenomena can be isolated i.e. that observation or possibly even the context in which they appear are not in mutual relationship with them.

        (different parametrisations) produces a field of more complex objects which opens a space by filling in void between them. A void which can then be interpolated and therefore re-proproduce the behaviour from which it is started from.

        transformations are never neutral

        which let the eigen-behaviour of the neural network shimmering through.

        of problems.

        This situation acts back on the observers, on us, questioning our reasons and our methods. It evidences complexity as an inherent quality of the phenomena we are dealing with as arising from a network of interacting and indissolubly linked inhomogeneous elements which, as behaviour

        problem making

        Problem solving vs. complexification

        complexity as uncalculable, intangible?

        incomputable qualities of the date become evident.

        • struct

        interpolation, apporximation

        productive

        non problem sovling

        complexification

        non reductive

        multiple parametrisations (of which we see two below)

        field of interrelated objects (transpositions)

        open a space where incomputable qualities of the data and of the process which generated them in this case become evident

  • DONE Find 3 images for start page.
  • DONE Fix Parisi / Hanns Holger

    Mention TP book cecile and schwab contact. she didn't have time.

  • DONE Ask Sally for final event
    • if she has interest and she could come and she would contribute something
  • DONE Ask Agostino for catalogue
    • artistic statement
    • what do we want with the
    • object between theory and practice
    • experimental object which also reflects upon itself
    • its about the positions which are carried from the works generated in the project
    • if it is an interesting thing to write something which will appear in the catalogue
  • DONE Add event hypercolumns
  • DONE describe hypercolumns in the rc / link to the tp @ rc for the final
  • DONE Test Raspi for audio streming + m-audio + 2 mics
  • DONE Ask IOhannes for more than 2 channels streaming / aternative to darkice
  • DONE Test with gstreamer: see IOhanns mail
  • DONE Launch Event
  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-05-23 Tue 14:00>–<2017-05-23 Tue 14:30>

  • Michele, Jackfield

    <2017-06-06 Tue 11:00>–<2017-06-06 Tue 11:30>

Works

  • We have
    1. Jackfield
    2. Speaker Matrix (not in that form)
    3. Steel rods compass (NO)
    4. Inflatable Compass (Where is it?)
    5. Neuro videos
    6. Piano Neuro (only with real piano)
    7. Piano Cluster (only with real piano)
    8. Cluster Drawings
    9. Lamps Dynamical systems (upgrade to 32 lamps)
    10. Hypercolumns (neuro)
    11. Phases Video neuro
    12. Causality report (images or video)
    13. Strings (genes) video
    14. Genes Drone
    15. Rebody video
  • We will do
    1. Audiorama streaming
    2. Piano network neuro
    3. Hammers Dome of Visions ?
    4. Video Compass Trajectories ?
    5. Genetic Knots 3d prints ?
    6. Cluster density tracking sonification
    7. Gerhard recorded steel rods conditioned reinstallation
  • We have

    3 audio works with loudspeaekers

    • sure
      1. inflatable
      2. bremen (audio + video LS)
      3. rebody (audio + video LS)
      4. genedrone (audio only LS)
      5. nina's video (video + LS)
      6. jackfield (audio HP)
      7. score
      8. causality report diptic
      9. catalogue (HP)
    • not sure
      1. metaboliser (HP)
      2. further neuros
      3. continuous collision
  • Raspberry Nets
    • ssh

      login with ssh pi@192.168.171.212 passw : raspberry

    • vnc

      login in the pi with ssh and start the vncserver: x11vnc then from client: vncviewer 192.168.171.212:0 pssw:123456 for connecting also from osx: x11vnc -display :0 -noxrecord -noxfixes -noxdamage -forever -passwd 123456

    • jack

      inhstall jack and qjackctl start qjackctl

    • icecast / darkice

      start icecast icecast2 -c icecast.xml and darkice: darkice -c darkice2.cfg config files is in: src/TP/stockholm/raspi

  • DONE Ask Martin installation autostart
  • DONE Checklist to take to Stockholm
    • headphones (3/4)
    • installations (Martin) IoS
    • scores
  • DONE Check material from IOS with Martin.
    • State "WAITING" from "TODO" [2018-02-12 Mon 11:24]
      waiting Martin's answer
    • small text for concept description
    • photos
    • sounds?

Presentations

  • Transpositions (beginning)

    collect points to be discussed informally during the event's opening

    • Final
      1. Beginning: (G) Hello etc. short
      3. End: practicalities (G)

      Slave to data (sonofication / visualisation)

    • Gerhard's
      • What were the starting points, motivations, expectrations, utopies of the project?
      • Artistic research as critique of the concept of research
      • Concept of transposiitons used nucleus of cristallisation
      • How can results of research processes (or the processes themselves) be shared? How are things framed
      • What is a research event?
      • How did the work with the scientists go? Wide range of disciplines, similarities, differences?
    • David
      • what data did we work with? (data sets)
      • what does it mean to work with data (as) "material"?
      • the role of errors (in the data, in understanding, in their understanding etc.).
      • how can results of artistic (research) processes be shared? (couples to Gerhard's question)
      • the concept of transposition as dialectical instrument
      • how does a transposition differ from a sonification/visualisation?
      • which "tools" did we use to approach the data? (audification, dynamical systems etc.)
    • Transposing the role and notion of Data: towards Facta

      Data is at the core of a process. It is a process: which is often ongoing, that is it's not concluded or conclusive. Unstable "Dirty" in the sense that it contains and carries in itself also all the conditions which were influential in its collection. "Dirty" in the sense that it cannot be considered as "self standing".

    • The liquefaction of static objects: stability and transformativity.
      • Liquefying boundaries

        Transposition as transformation, process, and formulation of such, rather then the stable and definite appearance of and artefact.

        as "where the artefact" comes from (the data) is such and important element, the stable "point" or origin around which the works or artefacts revolve around, changed the perspective. The works in themselves are less self-standing, more a sample of an ongoing process. Liquefaction means that objects are transformed into processes, statistic (cristallisation) is encountered with erosion.

      • Liquefaction again

        is that a way we have devised in order to "oppose" scientific praxis with which we were confronted, a way to offer a resistance in the hope (and purpose) to elicit discourse.

      • Is it an implicit offer or elicitation for discourse
      • Liquefaction also necessary of our percpetion of data is not stable

        scientists are not sure….

    • Appropriation is core of our artistic praxis

      Especially in the computer music practice inglubing and digesting attitude Not shared by scientific reseachers: builders

    • Knowledge

      Knowledge does not exist as a static, "object-like" state of something. It does not have an ontology which is disconnected from the person who is carrying it. knowledge actually does not exist as static in time. It is performed, elicited, resonated. Science (and art) produce formulations which afford its generation in who "reads" or experiences those. Knowledge is a kind of induced resonance in the mental structure. I image a very complex piano, with an enormous number of strings, all entangled and intertwined. Artistic or scientific formulations or artefacts induce slight changes in this structure, in this way knowledge sediments in the our system. So that posterior experiences might then elicit that resonances.

      metaboliser is a model of this idea.

  • COMPASS Data Presentation

    Explain the name explain muon explain proton explain proton structure explain spectroscpy explain quark confinemant explain detector

    • Notes for me
      • slide: the compass experiment
        • Hello my name is David Pirrò. I work at the IEM in Graz and am part of the Transpostions team.
        • You might wonder why I am here to talk about COMPASS and not a physicist from CERN
        • We had extreme difficulty of establishing and maintaining a contact with CERN scientists.
        • Luckily, I have a master in theoretical physics and have some study colleagues who worked or work at CERN. In particular my colleague and friend Giulio Sbrizzai who helped in getting in contact with COMPASS.
        • But, when my colleague decided to change and not to work antmore at CERN, well since then our contact break down.
        • So now I'm here and will try to introduce to you the COMPASS experiment.
      • slide: COMPASS
        • In general, COMPASS is one of the experiments in CERN. The projects records data of interactions between particles, the smallest bits of matter we know.
        • This data is the basis for formulations of "rules" or "laws" governing those interaction. Or to adapt existing formulations.
        • In order to introduce to you with more detail with the COMPASS experiment aims at specifically I though a good idea would be to explain its name, by breaking it apart into pieces and see what's inside.
      • slide: muon
        • What is a muon?
        • It's one of the particles in the particles fauna. Why fauna? particles are some many and have some intricate relationships that there is a system that cathegorises them ion different families.
        • The muon for example is a Lepton the same family of the electron and the netrinos. It si charge as the electron. It is much bigger / heavier then the electron (200 times).
        • And it is elementary : means it cannot divided into smaller parts.
      • slide : proton
        • the proton you might know.
        • it forms the core of atoms together with the neutron.
        • it is charged, but most importantly it is non-elementary. That is it is divisible. It is not simple it has a structure. As we know from theory this structure is formed by 3 interacting quarks: 2 so called up quarks and so called down quark
      • slide : structure
        • Investigation of the nature of this structure is the aim of the. That is why the word structure is there
        • and spectroscopy indicates the general procedure adopted. In spectroscopy the object you want to undestand (in this case the proton) is considered as a black box. In order to understand it, the behaviour of this object is probed by eliciting it with a known excitation and observing and charting what comes out. and charting it, that is making a spectrum.
        • At the moment theory does not exactly explain how these components (quark) "sum up" in forming the proton.
      • slide : common
        • As the "inside" of the proton us the research theme here, we need to look into it. And this is done with the method of Deep Inelastic Scattering
        • Scattering in particle physics indicates a general process of interaction which is specific for 2 particles. Hence, COMMON to these two and only to these two (in this case the muon and the proton).
        • Inelastic as opposed to elastic. In elastic scattering the two involved objects would retain their boundaries and structure: like two billiard balls hitting each other. Int the inelastic version of scattering, one of the object trasforms or breaks apart. Whch is what happens here.
        • There is one muon with extremely high energy and velocity, circa 98% of the speed of light.

        is launched with extremely high energy and velocity

    • The COMPASS experiment

      David Pirrò

      Institute of Electronic Music And Acoustics

      University of Music and Performing Arts Graz

    • COMPASS
      • One of the experiments at CERN
      • Investigates various interaction processes between particles

      COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • "Fat" electron : ~ 200 times heavier
      • lepton : elementary : non-divisible

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • forms the core of atoms together with the neutron
      • hadron : non-elementary : it is divisible i.e. it has structure

        • the proton is formed by three interacting quarks:

          2 x u and 1 x d (2 up and 1 down quarks) hold together by gluons


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • The structure of the proton is the main research field of the COMPASS experiment.
      • Spectroscopy indicates the general method employed: measure the response of a system (the proton) as a function of the applied excitation (the muon).
      • Understand how the proton's components "sum up".

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • In order to look into it, the proton is broken apart
        • The name of this method is Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS).
          • Scattering is the general process of interaction between to specific particles.
          • Inelastic as opposed to elastic (e.g. billiard balls) : one particle breaks.
            • a high energy muon is shot at a proton
            • proton breaks apart
            • fragments spray into the detector

      with such high energy that the proton is broken into pieces, instead of being "bounced" off like billiard ball.


    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      P7190004.JPG

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      Layout-3D-1L.gif

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      compass_spectrometer_2004.pdf.png

    • COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy

      • Technical device / instrument
        • creates the conditions for scattering processes happen
        • carefully stages them such that they can be observed
      • Practice
        • computational analysis
        • physical interpretation
      • feedback process
      • built such that it can be "filtered out" from subsequent calculations
      • its purpose is to record the passage of these fragments (particles) and their characteristics (energy, mass, charge etc.)
      • is is an aggregate of many different types of detectors, which are designed to measure different and specific qualities of the particles passing by
      • also: the whole detector is designed such to be "filtered out".
      • reconstruction process. computational process of analysis and interpretation.

    • Hits

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits.png

    • Trajectories

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj.png

    • Trajectories

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj_mdet.png

    • Vertices

      compass_spectrometer_2004_with_ann_hits_traj_mdet_vert.png

    • Data

      Data sets are organised in events : one event corresponds to one successful muon - proton scattering

      • hits : for each of the detectors the recorded passing of a particle. Each hit has (x, y, z, t) values.
      • trajectories : the reconstruction of the particles' path through the detector.
      • vertices : the places where particles have interacted with each other.
    • Quarks

      An confinement problem

Travels

  • GRZ -> ARN

    <2017-09-28 Thu 11:30>–<2017-09-28 Thu 15:15>

    • Sockerbruksgrand 16, 6th floor, door code 3820

      <2017-09-28 Thu 17:30>

  • ARN -> GRZ

    <2017-10-08 Sun 06:30>–<2017-10-08 Sun 10:45>

Video

DONE Book

  • State "CANCELLED" from "DONE" [2017-04-17 Mon 18:57]

:ID: 8d2177bf-29aa-435f-bb87-7e3ccf1ac9fd

DONE Deadline Sample Chapter Gerhard

Concepts

  1. Transposition
  2. Noise (Cecile)
  3. Network, Net
  4. Texture (Gerhard)
  5. Behaviour (David)
  6. Figure
  7. Diagram (Michael)
  8. Formulation / Model
  9. Algorithms (Hanns Holger/ David)
  10. Experiment
  11. Datum / Factum / Material
  12. Post-conceptual
  13. Proto-Object (Michael)
  14. Scaling
  15. Modelling
  16. Entanglement (of our works for example, metaphorical)
  17. Networks

Notes

  • Philosophy of change
  • Transformation is change changing the form of the space in which a thing lives
  • Transformation can be "not neutral" (to be defined).
  • If it is "not neutral" then destabilises the objects to which it is applied to
  • The transformed object (or the space in which it lives in due to the transformation) offers different affordances than would and could not be dicovered otherwise.

ToDos

  1. Examples of transpositions in music
  2. Jazz
  3. Neutrality (isomorphism) is context-dependent?

Abstracts

  • On Formulation, Gerhard

    On Formulation: Making Sense of Artistic Practice as Research

    Linguistic formulation refers to the production of spoken or written language. It applies to both the process of formulating a text and the outcome of this process, the text as a particular expression of ideas. Pharmaceutical formulation is the process of producing a drug from different chemical substances according to a formula. Clinical formulation is a provisional explanation of a person’s psychological difficulties. It draws from theory and guides intervention. All three notions of formulation will be useful in introducing the concept of artistic formulation, understood as a process using any means of expression. As opposed to the notion of composition, the proposed concept of formulation implies and affords reformulation, leaving the movement of research uncompleted, open. Formulation, as giving shape to an idea, also promises to dissolve the artificial dichotomy between content and form introduced by rhetoric mainly for pedagogical reasons. There is no idea without formulation and only through formulating it, the idea emerges in the first place, becomes tangible. These deliberations will form the basis for arguing how and why framing and conducting artistic practice as a process of formulation can unleash the epistemic potential of art. The argument will be supported by samples of my artistic practice as a composer and sound artist.

  • Staging Collisions: On Behaviour

    Quarks are not directly observable. Which means that Quarks cannot be seen or measured, not only because their realm of existence has scales which are incommensurable with our world, but also because they don't exist as individual particles as other particle do, for example electrons. If even with the finest measuring devices it is sheer impossible for us to actually observe them, how is it even possible to formulate their existence? What is indeed observable are slight changes in the other elements of the system they are immersed in, the other particle's states and trajectories. These changes can only be accounted for by postulating the existence of Quarks.

    Although Quarks are in general objects which live in worlds very far from our everyday reality, processes of identification and definition often follow similar paths. Objects are defined through the variations they show and produce in the mutual interaction with their environment, by something I will call the behaviour they exhibit. The term behaviour is borrowed with the meaning it has in physics or mathematics: it denotes a sequence of states a system undergoes over time. Behaviour is the unfolding of change, the time ordered variations of a system, decoupled from cause and effect. It is the particular path the variations follow and the identifying characteristic of what is being observed.

    Scientists create the appropriate conditions to elicit and expose behaviour, be it in vitro or colliding protons with atoms, and record the differences arising from the mutual interactions of the involved components. When those differences reveal themselves to be coherent and consistent enough, behaviour is isolated while the observed system is put into a different perspective from which it is looked at. It is transposed into a different space yielding new theories and experiences. This operation is the origin of a production of different materialities and the emergence epistemic objects which can be formulated and eventually defined.

    I will argue that artistic research practice could be conceived as providing a specific tool set particularly apt for creating moments of collision, dilating the time between the markings of cause and effect, staging interactions and exposing behaviour, eventually setting the conditions for performing operations of transposition resulting in the emergence of new materialities. I will support this argument on the basis of the "Transpositions" Project and from my own artistic practice as a sound artist.

    • Notes

      identifying behaviour places the whole system into another perspective

      Dieter Mersch: Diaphan, "Epistemologies of aesthetics"

      Time as essence of behaviour

      producing differences and exposing behaviour staging the environment for matter to emerge.

      Vieldeutigkeit

      In chemistry, researchers describe materials and their properties by observing how these react, or behave, with respect to other materials.

      subtractive process, taking out the causes.

      behaviour can be generally defined as a sequence of states an entity (system) undergoes in time. Behaviour is change, it's he change of an entity with respect of its surrounding. This sequence being generally thought of paths a entity's (system) state undergoes through time.

      By this tentative definition Behaviour is an "abstract object" or construct which is build from "change" or variation. The kind of "change" being the characteristic property of the behaviour being observed.

      colliding

      Something becomes observable when it produces it displays changes in its state or produces differences in the interaction with it environment.

      As for quarks they only become observable by their side-effects, by the indirect effects of their behaviour or the structure of their interaction. Quarks are not observable directly due the "quark confinement" phenomenon, just thought the effects of their interactions with them selves of with other particles.

      Behaviour produces changes, differences. Behaviours transposes the predicted path or property of a system to another one, unexpected, producing a new reality for the system.

      Producing materiality.

      Drawing from examples of my artistic practice as a sound artist, I will

      Chemical behaviour. Chemical properties of materials are determined by studying the behaviours of the material in chemical reactions.

    • Shorter version

      David Pirrò: Staging Collisions: On Behaviour

      Quarks are not directly observable, not only because their realm of existence has scales, which are incommensurable with our world, but also because they do not exist as individual particles as other particle do, for example, electrons: even with the finest measuring devices it is impossible for us to directly observe them. We, however, can observe slight changes in the states and trajectories of other particles within a system, deviations which can only be accounted for by formulating their existence.

      One may use this approach to stipulate that any object may be defined through the variations it produces in the mutual interaction with their environment, that is, the behaviour their exhibit within a system. Borrowed from physics or mathematics, the term ‘behaviour’ denotes a sequence of variations of states a system undergoes over time decoupled from cause and effect. Behaviour, thus, describes a particular path and identifying characteristics of what is being observed.

      Scientists create the appropriate conditions to elicit and expose behaviour, be it in vitro or colliding protons with atoms. When behaviour is identified the system observed is transposed into another experiential space, yielding new theories and observations. In this chapter, I will argue that, likewise, artistic research practice could be conceived as providing a specific tool set to create moments of collision, dilate the time between the markings of cause and effect, stage interactions and expose behaviour until eventually such transpositions may also result in the emergence of new materialities. I will support this argument using examples of my own artistic practice as a sound artist.

  • Transpostions Chapter David
    • Todos

      Remove aesthetics as much as possible as to sensual or aesthetic obejct into artefact or artistic work

      talk about trying to keep the text in a suspension, between statement and the unclearness: using both statements (also provocationally) but also intersecting (maybe contraddicting specifications) keep in a an abeyance state

      expression as well my difficulty to talk about it in this form. In a way it is also a sort of transposition.

      Oscillation

      and Recursion (substituting reeentrancy?)

      "knot" of ideas

      speculators

      incompleteness

      a transpositions seems to depict a gesture which seems common in artistic research in general: "launch" something into the void and then try to reconstruct the way back to the starting point.

      mutations induced, errors induced in order to "see" the correct, the original (or origninator)

      trasposition is iotself a generator, not a solution or a component or a tool. It is a position which once placed continues to move i norder to find its "right" place.

      indeterminacy, unshureness the state of non-solution is a value not a problem.

      Partiality keeps the movement open: resposible for the recursive process of oscillation between different states.

      Keeping the state blurred.

      phsyics resolved the difficulty of bringing together to incommensurarte things with oscillations.

      incommensurability lead to indeterminacy

      reasonign at the same time upon the manner in which we (or I) have understood artistic resarch: as a putting something somewhere where there is nothing, a claim, a speculation and artefact adn then try to reconstruct the way back to the starting point. Trying to reconstruct the narrative of the actual research process we have undertaken.

      at same time exposing the difficulty to transform (or transpose) my artistic parcatic adn expereince into the propositional field for the purpose of this text.

      a transpositijon reveals itself as such only when relation as made, connection drawn

      relation -> interaction?

      it seems a recurring phenomenon in my experience of artistic researcher: first operate, state and generate a position a trace of a process somewhere, and then, afte, try to reconstruct the path that brought me there.

      there is always something that is tranposed, an original somethinfg to depart from.

      space opened by the relatioships between transpositions this has to do with the oscillations, it's not only space it is bahviour, path, it is active.

      transpositions are condensations

      Transpositions present themselves as definite artistic works,

      tehy are defintie works, but unfold they transpositional essence in the relation, to other works, transpositions or to their original.

      when the affordance of relation is unfold

      condensations

      Artistic artefacts, are transpositions

      • old exerpts

        ftrom old difractijon end:

        A transposition is a position which has undefined coordinates, but exists in relation to something other, it is a difference position. Similarly, the following is a set of collected ideas and thoughts which relate to each other by difference or overlapping. These thoughts are the result of the diffraction, the breaking apart. Still, in the end, by putting these together and in relation, I hope to offer the potential of a pattern of interference to appear.

      • old quarks

        That is, measurements giving a hint of the interaction of the detector with an object which seems to be coherently interpreted as a behaviour which can be ascribed to one specific object.

      • old behaviour

        It is the particular path the variations follow moving from the point of cause to the mark of effect.

        Behaviour is an perceptual construction.

        The object we interact with is defined through the variation the system composed by us and the object itself show and produce in the mutual interaction with our bodies or the environment.

      • old dynamical systems

        ; on a different level I try to understand in which consequences this approach has on my and potentially others' composition practice.

      • old transposition

        It has a distance and interaction with another transposition which defines where it is.

      • old to Transpose

        To transpose is a verb. Etymologically it is derived from the latin "trans-ponere", to place across, on the other side of. Transponere is a verb indicating an action. The action to take something and move it from its initial position to another position which lies beside, across an another side of its initial placing. It is something which is done, performed onto an object. It is defined from the initial and the final positions reached. Transposing implies action which is external to the object which is moved. The entity performing the action is in the position to observe and read the initial and the final states of which it has exact knowledge.

        Transposing and transposition seem to have different meanings. A transposition has unclear coordinates. Transposing is an action between two defined positions. In the following I will try to take into account this difference.

        A transposition is not a result of transposing.

      • old resonnance

        oscillatory

        transpositions construct a space

        open a space

        differential space

        The debate around aesthetics and its definition is very broad. I will leave this discussion to who is more proficient of those themes and will not go into any detail here. Still, as I'm using the term, I think it's necessary to at least try to give a hint of how I understand aesthetics and aesthetic objects. This understanding is deeply influenced by my artistic practice.

        Aesthetics is the study of perception. Perception is intended as that active process responsible for the formation of

        includes the workings human sensing apparatus as well as processes of learning, memory and expectation.

        how these processes concur in forming that what we call perception

        I don no advocate for a segregation between cognition or thinking and perception. Different processes which do interact. The separation is merely rhetoric.

        might be merely rhetoric distinction, but it serves me to better explain what I mean.

        non discoursive means, non propositional

        no computation but resonance

        Resonances and restructuring

        not semantic

        Primarily appeals to perception.

        no representatonal function of perception

        active process

      • old differentiality

        To

        It is network that afford they have to be followed and performed

        Identifying

        still exhibit an emergent behaviour which remains as an aesthetic phenomenon as it

        remain unstable

      • correspondences

        as in the whole such in the small

        complexity stretches out from the object to its surrounding

      • old reentrancy -> recursion

        time aspect -> non static

        continuous reconstruction reiteratied reconstruction

        recursion is ongoing it is not a state recursion is a time pheonmenon interaction is recursion

        Recursion is a term used in computing which indicates a program which can safely be stopped in the middle of its execution to restarted again before its previous executions completed. Once the reentered executions have finished, all the previous invocations of the program resume.

        Differentiation as an operator of scientific research practice might be seen as a reentrant function. While formulating the rule expressing the differential behaviour of the examined data field, it recalls itself in seeking differential behaviour between the rule being developed and the expectations and already known set of theories. In a way it continuously regenerates the context out of which the experiment and the data have been produced. This might result in a sort backward cascade of differential operations. Once completed, that is once the last called operation results in a rule which can be confirmed (or falsified), the cascade is followed forward again leading to the confirmation (or falsification) of a new rule.

        The purpose of this operator being eventually the development of a grammar of rules by which formulating knowledge in form of propositions.

        Complexification as an operator of the production of transpositions, puts objects into relation with each other, generating compounds. These objects which bring their context with them, interact, modifying each other and the whole net of relationships they are in. Possibly unpredicted connections might appear restructuring the whole net the compound is built of and the context it appears in.

        In this sense complexification is as well a reentrant function. It produces compounds which stand in relation to each other, but whose relation is not differential. Instead it generates a net of interactions which produce a behaviour which remains am aesthetic phenomenon, irreducible to be expressed otherwise.

      • Incompleteness / undeterminacy
      • recursion

        stretches over the boundaries of a confined idea or work or hyerarchical level

        Recursion stretches out of the confinement of one set of elements, it infects all levels of

    • Diffraction

      In classical physics, diffraction describes the phenomenon occurring when a wave encounters an obstacle. In particular, the term is used to indicate denote what happens when light waves bend around the corner of a slit. Experiments examining diffraction effects were an important moment in history of physics, marking the passage from what was thought to be a strict division between wave phenomena and the behaviour of particles, to the the a more fluid concept of materiality. The exceeding of this border suddenly brought together into one essence two substances which before were not only different, but unrelated, incommensurate. A collision which produced an entirely new state of matter, something that eludes both the the wave and particle categories and is not reducible to their sum, something that, with respect to those categories, is intrinsically indeterminate: quantum matter.

      I believe that the concept of "transposition" shares some aspects similar to this kind of matter; and I think that physics could be a model in how to deal with concepts or phenomena eluding the categories which we are trained to think in.

      Diffraction literally means disrupting, breaking something apart or into its constituent parts. The light wave which collides with the slit on its path, is broken by it. This breaking is not only metaphorical, but actual in the sense that the light ray looses, for a moment at the collision its coherent image and appears as the collection of quanta (particle-waves) it is. Immediately this collection undergoes a reconstruction governed by the laws of interaction of the parts are subject to. This reorganisation process results in the appearance of the well known interference patterns. Observing these pattern, confronting these with assumptions, marking differences to these, are a trace of the inner workings, revealing the kind of interactions within and behaviour of the light phenomenon itself. As a different image of the light ray is constructed, eventually the observed phenomenon undergoes itself a transformation: it is transposed into something different. We speak no more of particles of light, nor of waves.

      I regard this text as a diffraction. The object being diffracted is the concept of "Transposition" and the obstacle, the slit which it encounters being the need to formulate this very text.

      While writing this text I try to understand my own practice in terms of transposition. In doing so I realise that its concept becomes a complex entaglement, a compound of various elements interacting with each other. There is my scientific background in physics, my artistic background in experimental electronic music and my practice in artistic research in particular in the project "Transpositions" (in the following as TP) of which I am part at the time of this writing. All of these elements are tightly connected in their particular and personal appearance. Their relation with each other is so strong that taking one away would maybe make my argument clearer, but in some way it would collapse it in a state which would capture some limited aspects of its construction.

      My intent is therefore not to provide the reader with a "solution", i.e. a sharp cut definition of the concept of transposition which would then be ready to be instrumentalised. Instead, I allow the idea of "transposition" to be an attractor of images, metaphors, thoughts, definitions and statements becoming a knot of elements hold together by explicitly of implicitly drawn connections. I lay out a field of fragments, products of the diffraction, which are in relation to each other, overlap or maybe are even in opposition: instead of delineating a completed path, I would like to leave to end open to the reader to construct and re-construct an image of "transposition", offering the potential for a pattern of interference to emerge. I will try a "weak measurement" of the idea of transposition.

      So, on one side the text reflect a quality of a transposition which I perceive as fundamental to its generative potential: that of being indefinite position in all or some ways, to be a site which exists as relative to something other as a difference position. On the other, more pragmatically, in this way I try to cope with the difficulty I encounter in translating my experiences as an artist researcher into the propositional form of a theoretical text. I meet this difficulty trying to transform this text into a transposition itself.

    • Weak Measurement

      In quantum mechanics measuring a phenomenon also means to cause a change in what is observed. More specifically, the effect of measurement is to collapse the observed into a state which is different from the one it was in before, a state which is only a partial component of the original complete phenomenon. Measurement has thus a dramatic effect on the object and reveals only a limited aspect of the phenomenon; the complete image of which remains inaccessible.

      For example, reconsidering the experiments on diffraction, the dramatic effect of measurement is particularly evident in the double slit experiment. In this experiment, there is an incoming beam of electrons (of photons i.e. light) encountering an obstacle, a wall pierced by two parallel slits. After the wall there is a screen on which the known interference patterns are visible, as the particles have also wave characteristics. Now, we keep the whole experiment the same, but we just add a sensor detecting when and if a particle passes through which slit. As an effect of this measurement, interference patterns on the screen will disappear, as the detector will cause the particle-waves to collapse into their particle state and we will loose their wave qualities. Further, we will measure just what the detector is built to measure, that what we wanted to detect from the start; we are not able to sense something that we are not expecting.

      A "weak measurement" is a type of measurement which tries to interfere as little as possible with the system it observes, thus attempting to reduce the effect of the measurement itself, but also obtaining very little information.

    • Speculations

      Throughout the text, statements are interspersed which have a double nature. On one side, they function as marks placed in a landscape of unsure and moving concepts: they are condensation moments for some line of thought that appears in the text. On the other, they work as speculations: conjectures or hypotheses based on unclear images. I use them as tool in writing this text, placing a trace in a space where I sense an interesting direction of imagination and of thinking and then, a posteriori, trying to reconstruct a path towards it, rejoining with it.

      Transpositions are aesthetic speculations

    • Quarks

      Quarks are subatomic particles which are, in the currently widely accepted "standard model", the constituents of hadrons. Hadrons are, for example, protons or neutrons, the particles which build atoms, together with electrons. The existence of quarks has been postulated by Theoretical Physicist André Petermann in 1963. Their existence has been postulated as there was no evidence of such particle: there was no measurement or data which would directly account for their existence. Quarks are a theoretical construct which tries to account for deviations of expected behaviour of elementary particles which can be observed in experiments.

      Experimental investigations of quarks' existence and their properties began in the late '60 (after their postulated existence). These deep inelastic electron-nucleon scattering experiments, in which an electron is shot which extremely high energy onto a proton or a neutron, showed a particular property of quarks behaviour. The so called "confinement", one of the hard problems of physics.

      As a consequence of confinement, quarks do not appear as free particles as most other particles known to physics. Electrons or photons for example, can be detected, measured as they, or they effects, can be recorded by a suitable detector.

      Quarks instead, cannot be detected; they cannot be sensed by any instrument. And this is not because the insufficient precision of the technology we have at our disposal, it is a characteristic of quarks themselves a consequence of the "confinement" phenomenon.

      One could depict the situation in this way: Imagine a spring, a very strong one, with two end points, A and B. If one tries to take just the end A thus separating it from the spring and the other end, one would pull the spring very hardly. But at one point, the spring would just break leaving us with the situation of having just two springs instead of one and four ends.

      If we call one end quark A and the other quarks B, this simple metaphor depicts very simply how quark confinement works. If we try to analyse just one quark by pulling it out from the system it is in, our action would immediately generate more springs, more ends and more quarks which remain bound to each other by springs. In fact, quarks do appear exclusively in groups forming compounds of two or more interacting quarks. These compounds appear, i.e. are detectable, as whole particles, concealing that they are not "one" object, but a system, formed by quarks interacting with each other.

      So, how is it even possible to formulate their existence if there is not even the possibility of an empirical measurement? If we would not know they existed, we would observe slight changes in the other particle's states and trajectories which fall out of the predictions which we would do with the rules of physics we would know. But, these variations are such that they can be regarded as the trace of one coherent behaviour. This behaviour is the basis on which it is possible to postulate, or even construct, the existence of Quarks.

    • Behaviour

      The term behaviour is borrowed with the meaning it has in physics or mathematics. It's meaning is somewhat underdefined in those disciplines: behaviour is used to indicate the "how" a function or a system evolves from one point or state to another. For example how the function \(1/x\) reaches \(0\) when \(x\) tends to infinity is a behaviour proper to that function and to that function only. Or how the velocity of a mass \(m\) attached to a spring changes periodically in time, is the behaviour specific of that system.

      Behaviour denotes the way state changes from one moment to the next, from one coordinate to the other. Behaviour denotes unfolding of change, the time ordered variations of a system when it proceeds from one state to the other. It is constructed up by differences produced by the system being observed in dependence from the conditions it is placed in. It is the defining characteristic of that particular system and of every other system exhibiting same behaviour.

      Behaviour is the coherency of differences.

      We perceive through differences, our senses have evolved such to be particularly sensible to them and less towards invariant phenomena. For example, static continuous sounds will become inaudible after some time, they will be masked, filtered out by our perceptual system. Whereas sounds which change over time particularly attract our attention. Same applies to our visual perception: an object, even if small, moving fast through our field of view is particularly evident to us. On the other hand, it is known that constant visual stimuli cause the photoreceptors to become unresponsive: that is, we are blind towards static phenomena. Even when there is no change in the object, the coupled system of body and sensing apparatus, is able to produce those differences. We have two eyes and two ears which sense different visual or acoustic images and which we continuously move with imperceptible small movements, changing the our view point, generating different images which our cognitive apparatus then integrates into a coherent image.

      Behaviour is a perceptual construction.

      When we want to know something we interact with it, we collide our bodies and our senses with that object: we look at it, listen to it, touch it, move it. Interaction means the generation of perceivable differences in the states of both involved systems (the perceived and the "perceptor"). Integrating those differences into a coherent image a consistent behaviour defines the object we interact with.

      Interaction elicits behaviour.

      I understand my own artistic practice as the composition of fields of differences which have the affordance of being coherently reconstructed in terms of behaviour. Differences might be found in the specific work itself, that is in the way events in the work relate to each other in time or space, as well as in the relations the work might present towards other artistic works or approaches in the context of computer music. This field of difference therefore is not limited to the work itself, it stretches out from it touching others with which it is in relation to, with which it interacts.

    • Collisions

      A collision is an event limited in time in which two bodies exert forces on each other. Although in common language collision indicates a crash, a dramatic event in which the forces involved are so great that the two objects eventually break apart, generally a collision is independent of the forces involved.

      Collision is a form of interaction.

      Collisions generate compounds.

      Collisions generate complexity.

      In an extended definition, a collision could indicate a bringing together, a in some way forceful contraction of different and maybe opposing, concepts like the idea of a particle and that of a wave. From this collision, out of the interaction of the two idea, something entirely different may emerge, something that is not just the sum of the two.

    • Oscillations

      Transpositions are positions which are relational, objects whose characteristic is to indicate distances to their origin or towards other transpositions. That is, they construct a space from a network of differences.

      A transposition is thus always in relation to something else. Even if it appears as a definite artefact, it affords a movement of rejoining towards something else. An continuous oscillation which recursively reconstructs the path from and to the transposition.

    • Complexity

      As the word behaviour, complexity is a term of unclear definition. It is used throughout different fields of research, but still there is no consensus on its absolute meaning.

      In general, it is used to denote a quality of a system composed of many parts whose reciprocal interactions result in emergent phenomena which exhibit a higher order of variability, greater than the sum of the parts.

      Behaviour is complex.

      Compounds are complex.

      Analytical approaches towards the understanding of phenomena attempt to decompose the observed into its parts, in order to be able to formulate description in terms of involved components. Focusing on pre-selected aspects and consequently filtering out what cannot be conceived, the effect of analysis is to collapse the examined into partial perspectives, failing to grasp the behaviour of complex phenomena.

      Analysis is a strong measurement

      Complexification instead, describes a movement orthogonal to analysis: it is the process of making something even more complex. From my perspective, complexification is a process that tries to keeps intact the phenomenon without breaking it apart and therefore neutralising the interactions between its parts. Instead a complexification brings the observed in interaction with other (possibly also complex) processes or objects. The observation of the products of such interaction, the variations it produces, may result in the appearance of a behaviour which is proper of that configuration: a behaviour which defines that configuration.

      Complexification elicits behaviour

      Complexification means resisting analysis. It means to acknowledge that what is observed might me more than a sum of parts. It means to center focus on interaction processes rather than on the extraction of static qualities. Complexification means to understand interaction as constituent, or even generative, of the observed: an interaction which unfolds in its internals as well as stretching out, towards other objects or processes in its environment.

      In some way, complexification it is a weak measurement technique: in complexifying it is acceptable to know less about the exact constitution of the object, in exchange of keeping its emergent properties intact. The observed it kept in a state of slight indeterminacy in the hope to keep its capacity to interact alive.

      A transposition is not an analysis.

      A transposition is a complexification.

      This text is a complexification.

    • Dynamical systems

      "Composing means to create a world". This is what one of my teachers told me during my study in electronic music and I took that advise literally. So, I began trying to understand what kind of "world" that is which I would like to create.

      In my personal perspective "world" means a complex environment composed of interacting elements: organic, evolving and coherent. Most of all it is something which is constructed out of its perceptible qualities. These expose differences and variations that are such to hint at an organic behaviour of interacting parts it is composed of. I understand my artistic practice as the crafting of algorithmic and computational tools which allow me to compose difference relations between computer generated which posses the perceptual affordances of being reconstructed into the image of a coherent behaviour.

      During my study in theoretical physics I had the chance to engage with the simulation of dynamical systems. From a theoretical definition, dynamical systems are mathematical models which describe how a system evolves in time. They consist of a set of rules formulated in terms of differential equation, governing how a system undergoes state changes during its evolution in time.

      In the collision of these two approaches, the artistic and the mathematical, I have developed tools which would allow me to realise works based on these ideas. I have programmed software with which I can implement and simulate those kind of systems whose evolution in time is translated into sound or images. Central is not the question if the rules responsible of the emergence of complex behaviour could be "read" or "heard" from the result. My aim is to explore under which conditions and to what extent this behaviour translates as a perceptible quality of aural or visual forms of the works. I regard therefore this practice primarily as a sort of experimental aesthetics

    • Transposition

      The term transposition is a noun. It indicates a place which lies aside with respect to another. A transposition has unclear coordinates. It is a position which is defined by the relationship it has to other places, to other positions or objects with which it connects to or interacts with. A transposition always affords a reference to another position, to an "original", to an object which it refers to.

      Transpositions afford connections.

      In the context of this text, transpositions are artistic artefacts. Works that originate from the artistic engagement with an object: a text, a theory or a set of measurement data as in the "Transpositions" research project. The original is used and appropriated as moulding material, extracted from the context it is placed in, reconstructed and inserted into a work which draws different connections: the origin is de-placed, put into an undetermined position.

    • Compound

      A compound is an aggregate state of more elements. Quarks form compound states which present themselves as particles. The elements which form the compound cannot be taken apart, separated from the others without destroying the compound itself or without generating a new compound.

      The elements in the compound are defined by and exist only in the interaction with the other elements.

      A transposition is a compound

    • Data

      In the artistic research project "Transpositions" (TP) scientific data is the object on which we direct our focus. The project investigates the possibilities to generate artistic auditory and visual forms based on the analysis and transformation of scientific data. While I'm writing this text, the project is still ongoing. At present we have already produced many of those forms from different data sets such as simulations of neural networks, or recordings of deep inelastic scattering collisions events at CERN. But, even if we already have worked with this "material" and produced transpositions of it, we still are in the process of understanding not only what we are dealing with, but also how we are approaching it.

      Scientific Data is the result of measurement or a numerical simulation. It is recorded and stored as numbers organised in some sort of matrix. Data means "given" in latin and as such it is usually treated, as a trace and a representation of what has been observed.

      Data is the collection of information produced by the application of a reiterated function, the experiment. It collects the results of probing that what is observed under varying conditions (e.g. different position, times, etc) and thus generating a field of values which are which are variations of each other with the respect to the measuring parameters, the conditions of the experiment, that is of the independent variables of the experiment.

      This differential field contains the trace of the behaviour of the sought phenomenon. Integrating this field of variation would mean re-formulating this behaviour in terms of a rule.

    • Neurons

      During one of the case studies in the TP Project, we have worked with data which was generated by simulations of neural networks. These have been implemented at the department of Computational Biology at the KTH in Stockholm. The data consists of recordings of the evolution of the electric potential at the membranes of the neurons in a modelled network evolving in time. These models are in themselves dynamical systems exhibiting emergent properties which are of great interest to the researchers as they provide the basis for understanding how our brain is able to perform complex functions.

      While to a certain extent engaging with the scientific research questions and methodologies which are part of the production and the analysis of theses data sets, we attempted various forms of transposition in which we followed paths often orthogonal to researchers' methods. In particular, we have chosen to concentrate on the behaviour inscribed in the time evolution of the system, stretching it and zooming into particular events. Analysis methods usually employed by researchers on this data aim to reduce its complexity and extract set of quantities expressing some overall statistical quality, but neglecting locality and isolated processes.

      In one particular transposition we have used the correlations of neurons with each other. Correlation is a measure of how much the activity of one neuron is related or similar to that of any other neuron in the same network: it is a measure of the mutual relationship or interdependence of different nodes in the network. These values calculated for each pair of the 81 neurons of the network we focused on, constructed a high-dimensional (81! = 81*80*79*….*2*1 dimensions) evolving structure, folding an unfolding in time.

    • Differentiality

      Differentiality is the property of a set or a field of points to have an univocal link to a set of defined values or coordinates. That means the relation between the points can be expressed in terms of the variation of those coordinates which can be called the independent variables. For example, in a scientific experiment, the conditions or the settings of the detector which have been used for the repeated measurements are such coordinates. Changing those coordinates will produce a different outputs.

      This property of data is central for scientific research as it allows to reformulate the behaviour of the phenomenon implicit in the data in terms of well defined rules. Mathematical equations in physics could be regarded as such rules, expressing in that specific language how a certain behaviour presents itself. On the basis of differentiality, these formulations integrate fields of differences into complete images: they stabilise fragmentary variations and construct a whole.

      Transpositions are differential.

      Transpositions resist integration.

      The conditions under which transpositions come to be and are performed are unclear. Processes leading to a transposition might be traceable in terms of the operations which have been performed on the object. This tracing however, will not make justice of the complexity of the aesthetic decisions and which have led to them. Further, these conditions might vary drastically from one transposition of the same object to another: transpositions are incomparable.

      Transpositions indicate difference positions, they are inherently differential. But, there is no defined common basis, such as a comparable set of numbers or coordinates which might link one transposition to another or to its original material.

      Transpositions resist integration in the sense that they cannot be brought into an univocal relationship with the conditions which generated them cannot be entirely known. They resist stabilisation into a finite propositional formulation. Relations and differences towards each other and with the object they are applied to remain incompressible, they continue to be a network of differential interacting positions.

    • Facta

      Looking closer at the nature of data, at its properties, one realises that there is more complexity to it. First, data exists only in relation and interaction with the experiment which has been performed, to the research questions, the particular measuring devices which have been used as well as the analysis methods which are then applied onto it. From this perspective, data is less a stable result and becomes more a complex compound of all these factors which cannot be separated from it.

      In a way, data is not simply "given". There is an apparatus, for example a particle detector at CERN, which actually produces a data set by performing a great number of operations which are transformative of the input phenomenon. Further, all these operations of data "taking" are infused by the researchers' knowledge and expectations and thus are a generative factor of the data itself. Data might as well have a double nature of "facta", done, produced and emergent from the interaction of all the technological and theoretical tools scientist have with what they observe.

      One of the results of the TP project, was to understand that transposing a data set means to recognise and acknowledge the its complexity. It means to recover its context and the net of interactions in it. The transposed becomes less a static moulding material on which transposing operations are applied and more a produced phenomenon which is active due to the interactions it emerges from and which it affords.

    • Network

      Trying to find a perceptible visual form of this complex space we searched for an operation which could transform this high-dimensional structure into a two dimensional figure, without loss of detail. To this end, we devised another dynamical system, which would accomplish this specific task in an recursive computation. This system is formed by 81 mutually interacting masses placed on a plane, one for each neuron. The system consists of 81 mutually interaction masses on a plane, one for each neuron. The magnitude of the force each mass pair is subject to reflects the correlation value that neuron pair has: highly correlated neurons would result in very close positions, while uncorrelated ones would remain as far from each other as possible. A set of correlation values of the neural network activity would cause simultaneously all of the masses to move and search positions whose relative distances to all other masses corresponds to that node's relationship to all other nodes. Similarity and interdependence are transposed into geometrical distance relationships. Eventually the dynamical system will result in an arrangement of the masses which reflects the best possible two dimensional approximation of the multi-dimensional structure, constructing a figure which folds and unfolds in time.

      The resulting visual form is a transposition. It is in many ways a collision, between the data set and the expectations scientists have towards it, my artistic practice in employing dynamical systems, and the artistic choices guiding fine tuning of the drawing just to name a few. And it is a complexification: we are dealing not with two interacting and inextricably interwoven dynamical systems whose responsibilities in the visual result cannot be exactly separated. The transposition doesn't extract quantifiable information from what it is applied to: it doesn't either present a "solution" as it doesn't search for causes. Rather, a transposition brings to light specific qualities of the transposed which are inherently incalculable. And finally, it is a compound formed or even produced by the interaction, the collision of all these aspects. It might stand as a self-contained artistic artefact, but its transpositional potential lies in the affordance of interactions with other artefacts, concepts, contexts, etc.

      Using this tools we realised different transpostions of the neural simulation data: we developed multiple parametrisations for the dynamical system and the figure's visual rendering. The result is a field of figures, artefacts whose mutual relationships constructs itself a network.

    • Resonances

      What kind of object is this then? It is an condensation of multiple practices. An artistic artefact. A scientific material. A

      It is all of these but none of these exclusively

      It is an oscillation between a scientific contexts and an artistic staging. An indefinite position whose

    • Recursion

      The concept of recursion seems a theme running in background of some thoughts I'm trying to depict here: it might be apt for clarifying some ideas.

      In computing, recursion describes the situation where one of the steps of an algorithms consists of a new invocation of the same algorithm. For example, the simulation of the dynamical system we used to generate the visual representation of the correlations of the neural network, is a recursive function. In general, dynamical systems may be considered recursive algorithms: they consist of the recursive application of the evolution rules to a state, the result being the input for the calculation of the next step. Recursion is the algorithmic formalisation of a process that evolves trough time.

      Transpositions are recursive

      Having unclear positions, transpositions afford a non static perception: their connections towards other positions, including their origin, are continuously reconstructed in a oscillatory movement, a triangulation involving all elements in their network.

      Transpositions are compounds of interacting elements: artistic and scientific practices, visual or aural forms, the theoretical embedding of the original material as well as its artistic historical and social context. This elements are enclosed in the artefact and are generative of it perceptual construction. Their recursive interaction is the generative function of the transposition.

    • Interference

      I will try now to draw a pattern of interference as it appears to me from the diffraction of the different ideas collected in this text. This part is less thought to present a final definition of transposition, more an attempt to make a picture, maybe partial, of the interactions between those ideas as they emerged while writing and autithinking about transpositions.

      Transpositions are compounds of undefined state which are generated by collisions between complex objects. In the case of the TP project these objects could be understood as data as phenomenon and the artistic practices of the project's researchers. These objects bring with themselves a whole context of complex interrelations in which they appear: i.e. data is not only a collection of numbers which is given to the researchers in order to be analysed, it is also tightly bound to the whole context in which it is generated. These collisions result in a complexification. i.e. the object arising from the collision is more then just the sum of the two, it is an inextricable compound of interacting parts which are modified in the process. This transposition appears as an aesthetic object a work of art.

      To perform a transposition means to acknowledge the complexity of the interrelations in which the two colliding objects are in as well as placing the transposition in a context of other objects, possibly other transpositions, with which it is related. A transposition relates to others, with connections not only towards other artefacts of the same form, but also other forms of formulations.

      As a transposition has unclear state, it can be perceived just through the relations it constructs in an operation of triangulation based on the differences towards other objects, its behaviour inside this network of relations. The staging and showing of a transposition in this context induces interactions between all the objects in the network, eventually changing, restructuring it and possibly generating new interactions.

      A transposition is therefore active, it oscillates and elicits interactions and the emerging behaviour of how relationships undergo variation is a trace of the complexity of the network. As transpositions resist integration this behaviour remains and aesthetic quality, unformulated.

      As the whole context in and outside a transposition is changed in the moment of its placing, also the relationships to it change. The process of producing, staging, presenting a transposition as a work with its interconnections, modifies it. A transposition, while being a work of art, is not under complete control of the artists who produced it, in the sense that it offers an openness to be seen, perceived or thought in different ways as it was thought.

    • Notes

      The space which is left or created in between the tranpositions, which has to be bridged or interpolated contains the productive potential of reinterpretation and perspective generation

      Truth!?

      transpositions as container of ideas , as generator of possibilities, -> needs to be complexified or either emptied

      a "succefull" transposition is one that allows to rethink the past and image the unknown as well as estabilishing a clear step "aside" similar trapositions (on the same level of understanding)

      In this sense a transposition generates space, a spece "between" two transpositions

      non linearity aesthetic thinking in the text -> translate into a text which is an aesthetic experience rather than apropositionalin presenting multiple statements which lie in contrast or overlap withe each other

      talk about the statements

      it is not closed

      Loosing control over expectetions as interactions modify the compound itslef Therefor a transposition is also an opening

      keeping the net an aesthetic object

      non hyerarchical thinking cause and effect

      a transposition does something it's active

      Control

      Net of relationships -> operation of triangulation generates compounds

      To perform a transposition means to acknowledge the complexity of the phenomenon which is transposed

      A transposition is a compound and as such it stands as a objcte of its own. In a sense it resists differential operations

      A transposition is a compound entangling the what is examined together with the artistic practice whit which it is collided with.

      Transpositions relate to each other

      Transpositions resist differentiality

      Generating transpositions means to collided a phenomenon (as data might be) with various instances of artistic practice. The generated transpositions are compounds. As the initial conditions vary for each transposition they cannot be regarded as differential, the field of variations is not differential.

      Still transpositions relate to each other and interact, so still generating behaviour.

      Transpositions are complexifications

      But dilating the space (or time) between the markings of cause and effect.

      behaviour identifies behaviour is how a thing changes it is the way how it changes, reacts behaviour is difference from one point to the other behaviour is the underlying coherency which can account for the whole difference filed a transpositon is a position which exists in relation to another the relation is the difference transposition elicits difference transposition probes behaviour difference is aesthetically salient difference is perceptible which is the object? data is facta data is produced data is elicited by acting upon something the action produces differences or a field of differences

      data

  • “. . . a new machine now arises” Algorithms and Reconfiguration, Hanns Holger Rutz

    A configuration is an arrangement, a set of—possibly heterogeneous—elements along with their positions or relations with respect to each other. This article looks at specific configurations in digital sound works. As opposed to the system term that stresses aspects of design and function, suggesting technological determination, a configuration focuses instead on the productive potential of the representations that its elements both entail and operate on. We study the transpositional operation as an act, deliberate or collateral, of reconfiguration, i.e. the modification of a configuration through the introduction of a new element or relation or a shift in positions. Our focus is on algorithmic practices, where pieces of code assume the production of forms and establish mutual writing processes between human and computer. Going beyond the traditional view of algorithms as a tight interlocking of logic and control structures, algorithms involve speculative computations, the production of materials that are yet “continually unrealized” (Parisi). Despite having manifest digital artefacts at our disposal, the nature of the configuration process is intrinsically difficult to observe. One useful method is the foregrounding of representations as “orienting agents” (Hamman). Each digital sound model, each textual or visual interface and each set of language symbols used to implement an algorithm permit specific ways of orienting elements towards another and bring about aesthetic and epistemic consequences. A powerful example is the operational closure inherent to most of these models and languages, their possibility of random and unbounded catenation and thus experimentation. Even seemingly “flat” representations such as a sampled sound waveform may play an important role for reconfiguration, as they permit structural coupling of second-order representations that would otherwise be confined to incompatible spaces.

  • Lomax

    1 Without Remainder or Residue: Example, Making Use, Transposition Yve Lomax Royal College of Art, London It happened as an epiphany. A transposition—in fact, more than one—had taken place and with it came an exposure of the functioning and control of a power that constitutes itself by separating something from it. And it begins with me being beckoned to see and think the peculiar existence of the example . . . I I’m at the threshold of a doorway between two rooms. I move from the threshold and enter one of the rooms. This much I can tell you: the place is abandoned. But wait, it is not empty at all. Just inside the doorway there is a small pile of sawdust and over there a shaft of sunlight is pouring in from a window, holding dancing particles of dust in its beam and illuminating a flattened cardboard box, which is a show of the geometrics of its construction. And look over there, almost in the corner of the room—it’s a photograph that has been pinned carefully to the wall besides which an arc has been drawn (soft pencil mark) that extends from floor to ceiling. Let’s say the room is thick with details. For sure, these details could be easily left to their individual or collective abandonment but, at this very moment, I’m being asked to consider these things as paradigmatic cases; that’s to say, as examples. At this point, everything in that room remains just as it is yet a little different. The Greek word paradeigma means “that which shows itself beside” and this is precisely what an example does: the example is found in a para-position. And in that abandoned yet not empty room where the sight of examples makes everything a little different yet exactly the same, it is this very position that is (again) demanding my attention. What needs to be said straightway is that every example, no matter what, has to stand as a real particular case. There is no play of absence and presence, no question of representation: for every example has to generate and show that of which it is an example. Here it is—here is an example of sunlight. In the room of examples in which I am standing, the movement asked of me is to go from the particular to the particular, and this is precisely the movement that Aristotle gestures in the few words that he wrote on the example: “the paradigm2 [example] does not function as a part with respect to the whole, nor as a whole with respect to the part, but as a part with respect to the part” (Aristotle, Prior Analytics 69a13–15, quoted in Agamben 2009, 19). Every example is a real particular case and it could not stand as an example if this were not so, yet no one example is the only possible example. There are always other examples, which means a real particular case has to hold for all other possible examples. Indeed, to be an example, a particular case has to stand for all other cases of the same type and, hence, can’t stand as this particular existence. Given as an example, sunlight is not sunlight but it is nothing other than sunlight—it is sunlight, as it were, besides (para) itself. An example shows a particular case but it can’t serve in its particularity; it is through the suspension of this “immediate factual reference,” this particular existence, that the example can serve for all, of which—and this is crucial—it is also to be included as a particular and singular case. At this moment, things become paradoxical, in particular the distinction between the particular and the universal. “The example stretches the distinction between the universal and the particular, the general and the individual; it is, characteristically, neither one nor the other. And what is also characteristic of the example is that it exhibit that of which it is exemplary. The example makes an exposition” (Lomax 2010, 88). As I go from the particular to the particular, I see the example giving an example of transposition; however, consequences emerge as it becomes undeniable that the example abandons the dichotomy between the particular and the general that has for so long—too long—dominated Western logic. In the room in which I’m standing a shaft of sunlight still pours through the window, holding particles of dust in its beam. I walk through this beam and across the floor to inspect that photograph pinned carefully to the wall. Here is an exposition. Here an example showing. I look hard. I look long. And what doesn’t come with this looking is a general photograph. However, a question comes and I can’t ignore it. —What has generality (the general image, the general artist, art in general) done for us? Stay with the question long enough and what comes to be called into question is the (dichotomous) logic that would have language always speaking in generalities. Here is the dominant story and I say it without sophistication: it is through the general rule 3 and the universal applicable to all cases that the world becomes intelligible and we can speak of it, for the particular case in its singularity is ineffable. It is here that the logic of a dichotomy forces a choice: either the ineffability of the singular and the particular or the intelligibility of the universal and the general. However, with the example there simply is no such choice; the relation of particular to universal is changed. The example is neither particular nor universal and Giorgio Agamben (1993, 9) would have us find this existence in language and upsetting the dichotomy that has had us choosing between ineffability and intelligibility. He calls it “linguistic being” and it is all to do with the name, with “being called.” The name “tree” serves to designate a particular case, a singular tree—this tree, that tree, a tree—at the same time as it names the class or set to which all trees belong. The so-called “tree” is an example. To act as an example, a particular case has to deactivate its immediate and empirical existence—this existence. It is by virtue of this very deactivation that the example can make an exposition of—generate and define—that of which it is an example. Through deactivation, the example stands beside this existence, this sunlight pouring through the window, and it is there, in that para-position, that it makes both the singular case and indeed the group or class to which it belongs knowable and intelligible—this is what sunlight can be. An example has to be a real particular case yet each time this particular case deactivates itself in order to generate, produce, and show that of which it an example. At that moment, the example becomes the exemplar of a general rule or norm. Yet each time it is a matter of this singular case making an exposition. Hence, the intelligibility that comes each time knows no pre-existing general or universal rule. The example goes from the particular to the particular and in this movement gives an example of transpositions, but what is crucial, for the example and the transpositions taking place with it, is that a general rule, norm, or universal is profoundly inapplicable. The movement “across and through” never leaves the singular as we go from one particular to another; and what the example or paradigm does, through the singular exposition it makes, is to transform every singularity and every particularity into an exemplar of a general rule, but this rule or generality simply can’t be stated beforehand. It can’t be presupposed. It is not already in place waiting to be applied.4 As we move from the particular to the particular there is a move from one position to another; however, things are not that simple: because the example cannot serve in its particularity means that, with all those other possible examples for which it stands, not only is a “community” formed where part and whole, particular and general, cease to coincide with themselves but also trans-positions take place that radically call into question the very idea of having a place or position. At this point, the example and the transpositional become consequentially political. To be called an example, which anyone or anything can be, is to assume a position that is essentially vicarious. Indeed, to live the life of an example means that at any time another can be substituted for you, as you are yourself a substitute for another. As an example, “your place is going towards and opening into all those other possible examples, each of which knows no place of its own and is immediately cast into another’s” (Lomax 2010, 94). It is nothing other than transposition that takes place as one example opens onto the “community” of all those other possible examples; yet the example occupies a place that is profoundly in question, and it is here that the full affect and radicality of transposition can be felt. Trans-position: not at all the taking up of place, not at all the setting down of a foot; rather, a movement that goes across and passes through. Trans. And here a world of places, positions, and substantives-to-be-known is abandoned for a world that is encountered only in its coming-into-being-known: The example doesn’t show the phenomenon of which it is an example established once and for all; rather, it shows it in its coming-into-being-known. The example shows the phenomenon being-such; it shows us the phenomenon as what it can be. And what this can does is to expose the phenomenon to its possibilities—this example is one of its possibilities. But there is more. Through its life of substitution, this possible example is opening into all those other possible examples for which, at any time, it can be replaced, which means that the phenomenon is being exposed to all its possibilities. And it must be said that with all these possibilities there is no one that is definitive. Indeed, no one example of what a tree can be is definitive of the identity of a tree. (Lomax 2010, 94) With the example of sunlight that is before me, the very thing of sunlight is “beside itself” touching all its possibilities, and what is crucial is that not one of these 5 possibilities is fixed and final and exhaustive of it. Can is characteristic of the example: the example shows the world not established once and for all but, rather, amid its potentia. This is what the world can be. This is what sunlight can be This is what a photograph can be. This needs repeating: with the example there is no archetype, arche, or beginning that stands in the past as already having happened and as such can be presupposed. No pre-existing general rule, no universal that can be taken as given: each example—each transposition—is a moment of arising and as such constitutes an arche or beginning. And this has consequences for that photograph pinned so carefully to the wall, which for what seems an aeon I have not taken my eyes off. What does it mean to apprehend a photograph as an example? In a previous work I took the question seriously. On a single page I reproduced a photographic image accompanied by the single word Example; it constituted a whole chapter in itself, and fifty-odd pages later, as an annotation, the following can be read: For this photographic image to be held up as an example, I first have to say—This is an example. With that being said I am saying that this photographic image shows you what a photographic image can be; it is, as such, a potentia, in itself a possibility that opens onto all those other possibilities, no one of which is definitive. Having said this, there comes yet another thought: What if the photographic image was to be considered as existing in the paradigmatic position of the example? Here the photographic image would be showing the world beside itself; the photographic image would not be it, yet the photographic image would be nothing other than it. As an example, the photographic image would give a view, yet this view—this image—would not be bound by something that is already established. It would not be a representation. For with the example there is no play of absence and presence. But there is exposition, and this shows not what the world “has been” but, rather, what the world can be. (Lomax 2010,

    As an example, each photographic image is itself a moment of arising and, as such, constitutes an arche or beginning. In short, the past ceases to be found in the past. In a sense, what comes is that which has never happened.6 Agamben (2009, 28) puts this beautifully as he asks us to consider a plate from Aby Warburg’s atlas of images called Mnemosyne. This plate is made up of twenty- seven images and the name “Nymph” (as Pathosformel) is given to the whole. But I would be mistaken to take this as iconographic repertory that allows us to return to an archetype or original from which they all come to exist. The images are wholly diverse. Here a photograph of a peasant women taken by Warburg; there a figure from a fresco. Simply put, each image is a paradigm—an example. Again: there is no archetype or original that has already happened and what every image called “Nymph” presupposes. Agamben (2009, 29): “Every photograph is the original; every image constitutes the archē and is, in this sense, ‘archaic.’” As we move across the twenty-seven individual images that make up the plate there comes an elucidation of transposition: something is carried across and shows itself in various appearances, yet this something can never be isolated as the pure phenomenon and, what’s more, isn’t a matter of a sensible likeness. At this moment, at least for me, “transposition” and “example” show the abandonment of a world of places, positions, and substantives-to-be-known for a world that is encountered without recourse to a separate realm and is, moreover, known without presupposition, remainder, or residue. A small pile of sawdust; a shaft of sunlight pouring in from a window holding dancing particles of dust in its beam; a flattened cardboard box exposing the geometrics of its construction; a photograph pinned carefully to a wall; an arc scratched from floor to ceiling: here are sensible objects, concrete phenomena and empirical situations, yet my attention is beckoned to apprehend examples and paradigms and see moments of arising. And as I go to and from each particular example, I experience an intimate and radical connection between transposition and examples, which brings a movement away from considering any of these examples as substantives (the stuff of nouns) taking up a place or fixed position in the world. And here comes what I can only call an ontological shift: everything is as it is but the being of the world and the knowing of the world has profoundly changed. But there is more and this is where “research” enters: each concrete phenomenon is open to a paradigmatic use to make something, which could be an idea, a function, or concrete design, knowable and intelligible, and—who knows— problematical. 7 Call it a paradigmatic method. Through the acknowledgement (I could also say, appreciation) of examples, the paradigmatic method seeks to make “whatever” knowable and intelligible. We use examples to show things and explain things; for example, weaving as a paradigm for “the art of governing people or operating the State apparatus” (Deleuze and Guattari [1987] 1988, 475). And sometimes we can only arrive at an understanding or comprehension of the “object” of a theoretical or historical investigation by constructing paradigms, examples. In using or constructing paradigms, the paradigmatic method comes to a “whatever” without the presupposition of, the acceptance and application of, a pre- existing general rule. This something could be the functioning of a “society of control” made knowable through a singular example (smartphones), which, as paradigmatic, opens onto a broader context and all those other possible examples. The paradigmatic method doesn’t take as given that which it seeks to make knowable, which is often the case with a hypothesis, which in Greek means “presupposition.” Hypotithemi—“I lay down as a base.” Let’s say a hypothesis is put on the table. The hypothesis has an idea and an investigation is to be undertaken, which intends that the hypothesis will give an explanation. The investigation starts with the hypothesis’s explanation, but it is here that it makes a presupposition; for, the explanation posits its own idea as a given reality. What is forgotten is that what appears as given is in reality only a presupposition of the explanation hypothesis that would explain it. In the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, immediately prior to the allegory of the cave, a passage addresses presupposition and speaks of treating the hypothesis as truly a hypothesis. In “What is a Paradigm,” Agamben speaks of Plato wanting us to treat a hypothesis not as a basis (presupposition) but rather as “stepping stones to take off from, enabling it to reach the unhypothetical [anypotheton] first principle of everything” (Plato, Republic 6.511b, quoted in Agamben 2009, 25). The passage has been considered obscure and difficult, but Agamben asserts that to treat the hypothesis truly as a hypothesis may simply mean to treat it as a paradigm: the difficult passage in Plato becomes clearer if we read it as an exposition of the paradigmatic method.8 The paradigmatic method makes intelligible without taking “whatever” as already given, as already set down, in place and occupying a position; indeed, it is about reaching, in the words of Plato, the anypotheton. Be it called scientific, philosophical, or artistic, is this not what lies at the heart of research, its fundamental gesture, as it were? I’ll say it as simply as I can: artistic research can make an exposition of that which is reached without presupposition. That is to say, it can use a paradigm or construct an example to make a moment of arising that situates knowability and opens out intelligibility, even if for the (dominant) order of things the “epistemic status” remains unclear. At this moment in artistic research, the particularity before me can never be fully separated from exemplarity. Transposition is most certainly in operation, but that which is to be “knowable” as continuous across a series of phenomena is shown and embraced as a paradigmatic case. For one more time I look at those concrete phenomenon as examples: a small pile of sawdust; a shaft of sunlight pouring in from a window holding dancing particles of dust in its beam; a flattened cardboard box exposing the geometrics of its construction; a photograph pinned carefully to the wall; an arc drawn from floor to ceiling. And what I see is a room quivering with beginnings and arisings and there is nothing stopping these beginnings from coming into contact with one another and making time become—I have no other words for it—musical. In this room, everything is as it is yet everything is changed: a world of places, positions and substantives-to-be-known has been abandoned for a world that is encountered without recourse to a separate realm. What is key with the example—as it were, its ontological gesture—is that in taking place no substantive place is assumed and, moreover, nothing remains external to or separate from it. There is no residue, no remainder; nothing preceding is left behind. II I turn around to cross into the room beside the one in which I’m standing and, apprehending nothing other than examples (including the room itself), no sooner than I’m at the threshold there comes a flurry of questions . . . Doesn’t the very idea of transposition bring possibilities other than the rigid inscription of things in particular spheres, and are not such possibilities something— whatever—that is capable of showing itself across and within a series of appearance but that can never be isolated? For sure, the transpositionality that the example has made 9 intelligible has shown me this, yet there comes the question of these appearances raising the matter of use; that’s to say, the possibility that, through transposition, “whatever” is “making free use of itself.” I cross a threshold and “making use” is making itself h eard. If transposition brings the possibility of something showing itself across a series of appearance, then is not each appearance, as a “free making use,” the arising of a new use? A new use? A new use most certainly speaks of potentiality not becoming exhausted with transposition, but there is more: each possibility that is other than the rigid inscription of things in a particular sphere and which is a “free making use” brings a use that doesn’t “serve for,” which augurs instrumentality and, bluntly put, ties use to utility. A new use: a non-instrumental, non-utilitarian use. The example has made transposition intelligible to me, and now, as I myself make a transposition and cross a threshold and enter that other space, what is heard is a new use. And I hear it as nothing other than a call: a call for a use with which instrumental and utilitarian use is as not. A new use: instrumental and utilitarian use as not. As not. “. . . the earth ceasing to be transformed into a ‘standing reserve’ that is material to be ordered, exploited and used up” (Heidegger 1993, 322). “. . . those buying as not possessing, and those using the world as not using it up” (1 Cor. 7:30–31, quoted in Agamben 2005, 23, emphasis added). Let’s say I’ve entered a space of new use, which is precisely a place where “to use” or “make use” brings a use that is untied from prescribed or compulsory or rigidly inscribed ends or particular spheres; and what needs to be added is that in this place there is nothing that is a possession to be owned. Indeed, what is consequential with this new use is: with that which makes use of itself (and here “self” is not to be confused with or presupposed or substantiated as a subject) or makes use of things in the world there comes a “relation to an inappropriable” (Agamben 2016, 81). Use is made, but there is no appropriating. No taking as one’s own. No ownership—possessing is as not.10 So, I’ve not crossed a threshold and entered a place that is littered with objects to be possessed or owned. No, I am not standing in the field of property. But what is happening is that the “use” transpositionality is making heard is calling for relations with the world (or the self) “insofar as it is inappropriable” (Agamben 2013, 144). At this moment, use and inappropriability are immediately in contact with each other, but there is more: this contact recalls an older sense of “to make use of” that, for example, can be found with the Greek verb chresthai. This verb bears no relation to the modern-day meaning of the verb to use, “to make use of: to utilise something.” For that meaning, the world comprises separated subjects (users) and objects (what is used); but not so with chresthai, which is a verb that draws its meaning from the term that follows it—make use of language. “The process does not pass from an active subject toward the object separated from his action but involves in itself the subject, to the same degree that this latter is implied in the object and ‘gives himself’ to it” (Agamben 2016, 28). Simply put, the subject and object are never separable. Chresthai is an example that shows “use” and “to use” as bringing a relational unity—a bond—between the object used and the subject using it. With the utilitarian relations that have come to dominate the earth, it goes almost without question that in using something you’re someone independent of the object (which could well be language, some bright sparkling concept, or a musical refrain) that is going to be put to use. It goes something like this: in making use of something, the process starts from someone going out toward something separate that is to be appropriated, grasped, grabbed, or even caressed and with which an action is performed, resulting in an accomplishment, which of course might not happen. But the situation is quite different with the older and unified sense of “to use,” where the subject is not separate at all. There simply is no prior subject, no independent agent, for “to use” never starts with nor rests upon a subject or agent that is already constituted. Putting something—whatever—to use you are found only in the middle of a process and, moreover, your very existence is affected by it. Not a subject that uses an object but rather a subject that constitutes itself only through the using. Example: speaking makes use of language. Language is put to use and an action manifests—I speak. And this very action can only take place through the use; what is more, I am, as a speaking subject, only constituted through the using. It is an interdependent relation and, with it, use and inappropriability are truly tied to each 11 other: making use of things is never to take as one’s own, and that also goes for the subject that constitutes itself through use. “To use” is to enter into a relation with something: “I must be affected by it, constitute myself as one who makes use of it. Human being and world are, in use, in a relationship of absolute and reciprocal immanence; in the using of something, it is the very being of the one using that is first of all at stake” (Agamben 2016, 30). A new use recalls an older and unified sense of use, with which subjects and objects are “deactivated and rendered inoperative.” And there follows, in their place, “use as a new figure of human praxis” (ibid.).

    *

    *

    * I have crossed into a space of use and in this place transposition shows and demonstrates a use that is immediately in contact with inappropriability and, at bottom, a radical deactivation of subject and object relations, instrumental and utilitarian use. And what of artistic research? This much I can say, for transposition to be “in use,” better still, that transposition is enabled to be “in use”—that a mathematical phenomenon or philosophical creation can appear within an artistic endeavour—would be an instance of such deactivation. And let’s understand that this deactivation means not only the one using does not, in using, go unaffected (his or her being is at stake) but also that a space opens up that is nothing other than “a place of pure praxis” (Agamben 2005, 28). And the reason for “pure” is simply that this space and practice of use, this new use that is an old figure of use, has nothing separable—as subject, agent, or object—from it. For the relational unity that takes place between what is being used and who or what is using it are never wholly separable—there is no recourse to a separate (prior) realm. I’ve crossed a threshold and gone from one space to another. I have spoken of rooms, but the space I’m in now is bigger and more open than any room I’ve ever known. In this space (should I call it a landscape?) using is taking place as not using up, subject and object have become deactivated along with instrumental and utilitarian use, and nothing prior is left behind in a separate realm. With the example, the universal and the particular are changed and with the making use that is a new use recalling an older unified sense of use, so are subject and object relations, and now I have become acutely12 aware that there is something going on that is transposable between the taking place of the example and the taking place of making use. The example has made transposition intelligible to me and this intelligibility— this transposition—has brought me, through possibilities other than rigid inscription of things in particular spheres, to a making use that, in taking place, has nothing separated from it and, moreover, bares no resemblance to that practice where an architectural feature or design is transposed, perhaps brick by brick, to another place. Here it is: what is transposable between the example and making use is not a substantive; it is, rather, a taking place that takes place without remainder or residue— nothing preceding is found or left behind in a separate realm or, for whatever reasons, excepted or excluded. And taking this further, let’s say that the transposition that can take place between example and making use is that of a mode of being that is not founded upon an act of separation, exclusion, or exception. It is at this point that the epiphany comes: the transposition that can take place between example and making use shows me—better still, exposes—that which found itself by purposely separating and excluding something from it. Yes, what is exposed is an act of separation that comes to function as foundation, origin, or ground—call it a constitutive exclusion. And what is revealed is a contrivance, a set-up, a mechanism of control, which some would call a monstrous piece of magic. Here it is: that which constitutes itself through an act of separation and exclusion has the separated or excluded become its origin and foundation and, through this, has it included. And the effect is precisely that of having the separated or excluded or excepted become captured in the form of its exclusion. Giorgio Agamben (2016, 264) most certainly sees this strategy operating within the governmental machine of Western politics/power and, what’s more, he sees it as the apex of Western metaphysics (ontology). “The strategy,” he says, “is always the same: something is divided, excluded, and pushed to the bottom, and precisely through this exclusion, is included as archè and foundation.” Look at how governmental power founds itself and controls by separating something from itself. Look at how the first act of government, which happens every day, hour, and minute, separates being (what will be called bare life, naked life, mere being, biological being) from the purely practical activity of its management, administration, and government. 13 And look for as long as you can at the ungoverned—“anarchy”—being produced in the first cut of government, which is a government’s first act, by which it founds itself upon something separated, constituting a beginning that is not in the past but today is ever present. The ungoverned called anarchy is placed at the origin and over and over again the governmental machine functions and originates itself through this inclusion of the excluded. At this moment, anarchy—whatever has been excluded—is captured in the form of its exclusion, and why the operation is truly a work of dark magic is that it is not and never will be a matter of having anarchy (or being or whatever) turn against this very capture. Any act of doing so leads power, the governmental machine, to function ever more so—what returns is the anarchy internal to governmental power itself. Agamben (2016, 275): “Because power is constituted through the inclusive exclusion (ex-ceptio) of anarchy, the only possibility of thinking a true anarchy coincides with the lucid exposition of the anarchy internal to power.” The example has shown me what “transposition” can be, and through the very idea and movement of something—whatever—showing itself across a series of appearance from which it is never isolatable there has come the possibilities of a “making free use” that is a new (non-instrumental and non-utilitarian use) use. So, the example brings a transposition that brings the matter of use (a new figure for human praxis), and what is transposable from example to making use is a taking place without remainder or residue. And this has shown me a beautiful non-activation of—better still, simply as not—the working of a power and control that begins with an act of separation constituting a foundation that is, at the very same time, a capture of the excluded. But there is something else: the transpositions that have appeared show me “transposition” as always a matter of this mode. My heart begins to beat a little faster: as I cross a threshold and find myself in a space that is not a property littered with objects and things to be owned and possessed, I become aware that transposition is demanding me to think nothing other than modality; in fact, nothing short of a modal ontology. Rather than an ontology of substance where we would identify something that is always below and separable from its modes or modifications, what is asking for attention—if not love—is a modal ontology with which being or substance or a substantive or whatever is nothing other than its mode, its “as,” its “thus.”14 And this is where the music begins: One of the fundamental meanings of “mode” is in fact the musical one of rhythm. . . . Benveniste has show that “rhythm” (rhythmos) is a technical term of pre-Socratic philosophy that designates form, not in its fixity (for this, Greek prefers to use the term schema) but in the moment in which it is assumed by what is moving, what is mobile and fluid. . . . Mode expresses this “rhythmic” and not “schematic” nature of being: being is a flux, and substance “modulates” itself and beats out its rhythm—it does not fix and schematize itself—in the modes. (Agamben 2016, 172–73) At last I can say this: No matter the possessive pronoun, “my” life is not an object of ownership; it is not my possession and nor is it anybody else’s. Life, my life, is an example constituted only in use, which is to say that there is no life that can be separated from its form of life, its modes of being; indeed, being is not a substance that precedes the modes or forms that are expressions of the possibilities of being—the world turns and returns without anything being placed in a separate realm. For the transposition of musical notes from one key to another, what matters is music—life—as this mode, as thus. References Agamben, Giorgio. 1993. The Coming Community. Translated by Michael Hardt. Theory Out of Bounds 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. First published 1990 as La comunità che viene (Turin: Einaudi). ———. 2005. The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Translated by Patricia Dailey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2000 as Il tempo che resta: Una commento alla Lettera di Romani (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri). ———. 2009. The Signature of All Things: On Method. Translated by Luca D’Isanto with Kevin Attell. New York: Zone Books. First published 2008 as Signatura rerum: Sul metodo (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri). ———. 2013. The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2011 as Altissima povertà: Regole monastiche e forma di vita (Vicenza: N. Pozza). 15 ———. 2016. The Use of Bodies. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First published 2014 as L’uso dei corpi (Vicenza: N. Pozza). Deleuze, Giles, and Félix Guattari. (1987) 1988. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Athlone Press. First published 1980 as Mille plateaux (Paris: Éditions de Minuit). This translation first published 1987 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Heidegger, Martin. 1993. “The Question Concerning Technology.” Translated by William Lovitt. In Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964), edited by David Farrell Krell, rev. and expanded ed., xx–xx. San Francisco: Harper. Essay first published 1954 as “Die Frage nach der Technik,” in Vorträge und Aufsätze (Pfullingen: G. Neske), 13–44. Lomax, Yve. 2010. Passionate Being: Language, Singularity and Perseverance. London: I. B. Tauris.

  • Discussions
    • Michael

      It seems that there is no coherent definition of the term ‘transposition’ - the concept is used in diverse contexts ranging from mathematics to genetics to music, always with slightly different meanings or connotations. ‘Transposition’ may thus indicate a simple displacement of information – moving something from this location to that location – or it may be an operation on a whole set of information equally affecting all members. I wonder, if we recruit the notion of ‘transposition’ as one possible operator in the field of artistic research, do we find what we seek in already existing definitions, or are we, in fact, complicating the term to fit our own interests and practices?

    • Gerhard

      I want to start our discussion with my current attempt to define transposition: Transposition transforms an object together with its relationships to the context it inhabits. This operation can change an object only insofar as its relationships to the context allow. It also modifies the context to the extent possible by the ways the object is entangled with it. Thinking transformation in terms of transposition acknowledges the fluidity and interdependance of objects and contexts, in contrast to other trans-operations, such as transportation, transcription, translation, or transmutation.

    • David

      And here is my current attempt:

      A transposition etymologically indicates a position which lies aside of another and thus exists only in relation to others: it has unclear coordinates. A transposition might be defined through the relations and interactions it has with other transpositions in a sort of continuous triangulation operation. Performing a transposition on something means therefore to put it in an undefined state which, as the final point is not known, cannot be thought of as a simple displacement. Instead it seems to be more the result of a process of complexification of the object, as something is added to it, a quality that changes it.

      As Michael points out, there seems to be no coherent common denominator of its definition throughout the various disciplines, so there is not much to rely on, which is both a problem and a chance. I agree, trying to define it for me, I attempted to fit my own interest, practices and backgrounds and the result is therefore (more) complex: maybe a transposition in itself. I am interested to see how it interacts with others.

    • Michael

      I think it’s probably fair to suggest that (artistic) research projects often build on existing concepts while stretching – or even transposing – them to fit their concerns. In doing this, concepts become plastic. For instance, our sister project for this publication, ‘MusicExperiment 21’ represented by Paulo de Assis, who is also the PI, Lucia D’Errico and myself, displays a similar dynamics around the notion of ‘experimentation.’ We take it from the history and theory of science as well as philosophy and define it quite specifically in the context of our research as replacing modes of interpretation in performance practice. In hindsight, though, in both cases, what we though the founding concepts were – transposition or experimentation, respectively – have turned out to be so shifting that a stable footing was never quite achieved. In some sense, the future proved much more stabilizing than the past.

      However, I do think that ‘transposition’ is not just a notion to depart from; it is also a concept with a very narrow operative scope that promises to help finding a language for key process in contemporary art and artistic research, in particular. Ever since I started to conceive of my practice as ‘artistic research’ I have been seeking handles to get deeper into its substructure.

      But, David, why do you think that the transposed state is also an undefined state? You said it yourself, even if it is not absolutely defined, it is still relatively defined, or do you think that a transposition is also a departure from that relations from which it emerges?

    • David

      When a transposition is performed its genesis is conditioned by the relations the objects bears in itself (which would be scientific data sets in the case of the TP project) as well as the relations inherent in the practice of the artist performing the transposition. For example on one side, data is not only a set of numbers, it also strongly relates with the scientific process it arises from (or even generates it), the experimental detector, its functioning and technical characteristics, as well as with the hypothesis or theories which led the scientist to gather that particular data with that particular detector. On the other side, my practice cannot only be defined as sound and or video art: it correlates strongly with my personal history, my previous education and my past works.

      When a transposition is performed, a work is generated which already is a complex net of relationships which comprises other works as well, other transpositions with which it is indissolubly entangled into. And, when it is placed into this space of relations or interactions it actively redefines the geometry of this space possibly causing oscillations or resonations of the whole network. From my perspective, a fundamental quality of a transposition is to have the affordance and openness towards being re-positioned in relation to others. It has the potential of a continuous redefinition if its placing and that of the other elements in the net.

      So, yes, in its inception a transposition is a state defined relatively, but as all relations cannot be fully seen or understood until it is "placed" in some complex space and left to interact with the elements of this space, its positions is unstable, shifting in dependence of which perspective is being taken into account. In its being unclear and somewhat undefined, it is actually a continuous generator of deformations of this space. And that particular kind of deformations it produces exposed something about itself.

      Gerhard, I just reread your previous statement, and I found many similar thoughts. I wonder how you think your definition of transposition relates or resonates with your own practice.

      As you Michael I am stretching the term 'transposition' and probably attempting a redefinition in order to fit my practice. This happens in retrospective while I'm trying to understand what I've been doing in my artistic practice in terms of 'transposition'. I'm probably making the concept more unstable and unclear, trying to push and pull it and see how it "reacts" and from this reaction trying to understand more of what it means.

    • David

      Maybe I'm taking a detour here.

      I think there's a difference in understanding transpositions as the production of aesthetic artefacts on one side and as the posing of questions on the other, as Michael has said. I think that one perspective stresses the need of the transposition to be, in a way, self-contained, coherent, something one can point to, a sensible and stable trace. The other, stresses the "active part" of the transposition in that it indicates its affordance towards processes of reformulation of the transposed or its context, a potential agency inscribed into the work that generates new processes. From one side transposition stands for itself, from the other it stands in relation to other. And both perspectives are applicable, at the same time. This is of course my own interpretation of what you have said.

      Recalling when I was writing my Thesis in Computational Physics, my practice (without going much into detail of the specific themes) consisted in writing algorithms that would simulate the effects of slightly modified physical laws in order to account for effects which are known but not understood or simply to simulate systems which can not be otherwise experimentally tested. The outcome was data (number lists) describing the state of those systems. This data was then confronted with other simulation results of other algorithms generated by different intuitions about those modifications and with what is know to be true. Also here there are objects, artefacts (the data sets) which are coherent in the way they are produced, they stand for themselves as traces of a completed process. But they are also a material which allows for speculation, they contain the potential of speculation. The potential being inscribed into them by the exact, reproducible mathematical algorithmic formulation of their generation, which affords the "asking back" as Michael said.

      I do not want to draw any parallels (or find differences) between science and art, this rhetoric exercise is been already done enough. Instead, out of the conflation of my past and present practices and the interactions between them (which are there simply because these two elements collide in my person) I come up with a wording different from "aesthetic artefact", which could account for the two perspectives I have read (or interpreted) and bridge the gap between artefact and process. We could say that transpositions generate "aesthetic speculators". Gerhard what do would you think?

      Regarding "truth". Michael, maybe I don't understand what kind of truth you mean when you refer to the "truth" of the transposed. Doesn't truth need to be known in order to be? And what do we know of the transposed? Looking at the Transpositions Project, I would say that the only truth of the transposed, the data, is that it is generated by the whole complex scientific apparatus. Other than that, there is not much truth in there, otherwise scientist would not look at it.

      I would claim that truth is generated. Out of relationships different objects (transpositions?) have to each other. When this relationships become a stable network of connections, truth arises. It is the form which connects the objects, which rebuilds a continuum from a set of distinct positions. Is this what you mean Michael when you say truth is "a made link between separates"? Isn't it then that truth is actually disconnected from the particular, from the single object? As it can only encompass a whole set?

    • Gerhard

      I want to pick up on your question, Michael, concerning the truthfulness towards a source material, e.g. data. Being ‘true to the data’ means to be faithful to it, not to cheat when transposing, reformulating it. I agree that such kind of betrayal (or its contrary) will probably only be detectable in retrospect, when considering the difference between the source material and its transposition. But, as you point out, the trans positional operation itself is marked by infidelities caused by fragmentation or change of context. These are necessary to gain new perspectives. But to retain the possibility for an ‘umbilical cord’ – as you put it – to exist at all is a core methodological element. I also agree that trans positional material means nothing in transit – which reminded me of Herbert Brün’s notion of the ‘interregnum’ in his text “For Anticommunication” (http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/brun/anticom.html), a chapter in his book “When Music Resists Meaning”.

      I do prefer ‘transposition’ to ‘transformation’ mainly because the latter implies a kind of neutrality that makes it uninteresting. A transposition is a form of aggression towards the source material. It questions and destabilizes the data, opens it for speculation – as David put it. This is only acceptable if the transposition generates an added value. Being ‘true to the data’ does not relate directly to the data’s truth, which – I completely agree – is plastic.

      I also want to pick up on your question, David, about the ‘aesthetic speculator’. We have used the terms speculation several times now in our conversation and I find it an appealing one – thought based on incomplete knowledge. For me ‘speculation’ also forms an interesting alliance with ‘complication’ (or complexification – where do you see the difference, David?), which does not aim at an increase in clarity but possibility. I am using the notion of the ‘aesthetic artefact’ to refer to the (intermediary) result of a transpositional process, during which certain aspects have been in flux and which had to be fixed (or formulated) such that a form (formulation) can be apprehended. This is why it would be difficult for me to omit the aspect of the fixation the term artefact refers to. I think the gap between process and artefact should not be closed – it is a productive one. A process becomes readable through a sequence of artefacts.

    • David

      In my understanding the term 'complication' has a negative connotation. A complication impedes, it makes something more difficult. Whereas complexification stands for me in relation (and in opposition) to analysis as an operator applied to unknowns and as such it should not have any qualitative colouring.

      Analytic approaches proceed to dissect objects, breaking them down into smaller pieces in order to reformulate what is not understood as a sum of known parts. Instead at the core of complexification is the understanding that this sum might be less then to the entanglement of parts which generates the emergent essential properties of what is being observed. Complexification centres on the connections between parts rather than the parts as separate objects. I would say that complexification accepts the possibility of loosing some precision (I wouldn't say loosing clarity as this might depend on the perspective) in favour of not loosing the integrity of the observed and its entanglements, which would rather be lost if analytically studied.

      Complexification operates by intentionally creating more complex situations in terms of the entangled elements and observing the behaviour of the new states in order to understand the specificity of the involved parts. These new state are possibly (and maybe hopefully) unexpected or even surprising. So, I think that another key aspect of complexification is that it is an operation which accepts a partial loosing of control over the results. And I see this as one of the connections between speculation and complexification: as you say Gerhard, speculation is a statement based on incomplete knowledge, a bit "uncontrolled" statement which "dares" to leave a trace in an empty space, maybe also loosening strict logic or scientific ties and which poses a challenge. Do you agree? What other aspects of the alliance between speculation and complexification do you see?

      I think that a little clarification regarding my previous statement about the gap between artefact and process is needed, maybe I was not clear. I didn't want to point to the process which goes on "behind" the artefact and of which the artefact is a fixation point. I was referring to the potential of the transposition artefact of affording processes of reconfiguration and reformulation. Artefacts sequences have not only the function of making the process they are part of readable, of being a sort of display: what I'm trying to say is that a key property of these artefacts is actually to possess an agency which "backfires" on the process itself modifying it and which generates new possibilities and directions. These artefacts are actually co-generators of the transpositional processes. I thought that the term artefact would be too static to include this aspect. Does this make it any clearer?

    • Rests

      For example suppose we have a substance we don't know and we don't understand. chemical metaphor

      I think at the heart of a complexification is a perspective on the world which revolves around relationships and interconnections rather than on a collection of objects

      Aesthetic speculations

      how do we speak of tranpositions. In terms of other things, we reformulate. There is some sort of limit in this way of argumentation. It seems to me (or maybe better, it feels like) as it is very difficult to explain what we intend by transposition using a this kind of discussion.

      It seems that "transposition", maybe especially in the nexus or collisions of our practices, gains a sort of more and more elusive character. Unstable definition.

      But mybe this leads us to think of a different way of argumenting, discussing thinkgs which is not in the "traditional" form of language use as in science or even philosophy?

    • DONE Write answer to Gerhard's intro TP

DONE Review Abstract including Transpositions in it

DONE Write chapter

  • On Transpostiions
    • Gerhard

      Transposition is

      • to read data aesthetically, with an aesthetic attitude (e.g. like a landscape)
      • to read data as (if it was) an aesthetic artefact (art work)
      • to consider data as if it was created as an aesthetic artefact
      • adopt an aesthetic attitude towards data in order to make an aesthetic experience
      • to reformulate data as an aesthetic artefact (which implies/requires a certain understanding of it scientific formulation)
      • a critique of scientific (data) practices
      • a critique of the way data has been established and the world view that comes with it
      • exposes the fact that data is made (by the scientists)
      • consider data as an aesthetic artefact (created by scientific practice) and reformulate it through artistic practice
      • is the art to critique (without words) how something is thought
    • David
      • Behaviour:
        • behaviour is a term used in many disciplines with different definitions.
        • I will use the, (somewhat implicit) definition used in physics and mathematics
        • it is the way, the "how" something acts under certain conditions
        • behaviour denotes a sequence of states a system undergoes
        • Behaviour is the unfolding of change, the sequence of ordered variations of a system
        • it is decoupled from cause and effect (e.g. how an object falls under the effect of gravity is decoupled from the cause responsible for the object to fall).
        • It is the particular path the variations follow (e.g. the sequence of variations in speed and position of the falling object)
        • and the identifying characteristic of what is being observed.
        • behaviour produces differences, "differential" paths, sequence of variations of the systems state
        • the differences are the observables through which behaviour becomes perceptible, an aesthetic object
        • something can be observed when it produces differences to what is expected
        • differences to what: differences are to be found on different layers: differences produced by the observed system in itself, differences from the expectations, differences produced by different conditions, apparata, interpretations, analyses etc.
        • variations of all these produce a field, a differential field of "local" behaviours
        • variations, differences can be expressed and represented
        • something which is static, constant, (e.g. masking noise) is more difficult to perceive, and therefore to describe
      • Data is:
        • done, it is produced, data is facta (not facts as in English but done as in Latin)
        • is the result of a measurement, a process by which researchers elicit reactions (collision) from "something"
        • is there any actually existence of data as a material
        • data appears in the form of an effect: it is the effect of the measurement and it affects analysis and observation
        • it is something it is operated on: without analysing, looking at it, (re-)interpreting, it has no meaning
        • is a transitional state. it exists only between the measurement and the observation. as such data does not exist as a well defined (confined) object or phenomenon. it is produced by an apparatus (including the all the technical apparata as hardware as well as analysis tools or the expectations which led to the measurement itself) and is observed, analysed.
        • it exists between its cause (e.g. the collision) and the effect (e.g. the analysis of hits)
        • is inherently a behavioural object, unstable
        • scientific (analysis) representations tend to stabilise it, to render it "predictable"
      • Transposition is:
        • to "reactivate" data
        • not to analyse data, fixate it into a model or "explanation", constrain it into a theory
        • not to deactivate it, fixing it numbers, quantities, parameters models or equations
        • recover the active part of the data as a transitional state of observation
        • put it in the conditions to be active, difference producing processes
        • colliding data with other processes, environments, representations, reproducing differential fields of effects and therefore aesthetic experiences
        • to include the process of their generation, the apparatus, as a non-transparent, inactive, part of their appearance
        • therefore producing localities rather than "generalisationable" moments of observation
      • locality
      • differentiality
      • expectations / conditions
      • Ideas:
        • Differential space
        • diffractive reading
        • data is the phenomenon
        • does the detector exist at all

CANCELLED Correct with note of michael

  • State "CANCELLED" from "DONE" [2017-04-17 Mon 18:57]

DONE Review proof

Catalogue

DONE Start collecting data

See format described in file:///home/david/projects/transpositions/TP%20catalogue%20plan%202017-02-02.docx

  • Images

    50 per case study + 10 ca. from other photos of events are extra

    1. general readme

      The pictures are organised in five folders and labeled according to the case studies:

      • cs1 : neural networks
      • cs2 : deep inelastic scattering
      • cs3 : cosmology
      • cs4 : DNA folding
      • metaboliser :
      • in each of the metadata
      • tags:
        • Label
        • Data
        • Process
        • Question
        • Association
    2. cs1 : neuro

      • general:

        The data are recordings of the activity of single neurons in simulated neural networks, i.e. the electrical pulses they produce over time. The specificity of these networks and these simulations is that they attempt to model and emulate how memory recall processes in the human brain could possibly work. We mainly worked with data from a network that spontaneously recalls (remembers) previously learned patterns.

        The network consists of 2430 cells organised in groups of 30 in 9 so-called minicolumns and 9 hypercolumns: 9 x 9 x 30 = 2430. The recording of the activity this network is 200 seconds long. The electrical state of each of the cells is sampled every millisecond.

        The data set is "spikesnooscs200s".

      • imperfect matrix blinks

        • Label

          electrical activity of network at one time frame: pattern / no pattern

        • Data

          Spikes each cell produces at x seconds from the beginning of the simulation

        • Process

          The image surface if subdivided into 2430 equal subareas each assigned to one neuron. The recording of the network's activity is then played back at one 100th of the original speed. Whenever one of the cells spikes the corresponding subarea in the image is coloured. Images are extracted from a video recording.

        • Question

          Can we look at the state of the whole network at each time step? Can we transform this state into an image? How would it then look like when the network remembers a pattern? Can we patterns?

        • Association

          Has something of a "machinery": buttons and lights blinking and bleeping on the surface of a complex interface of a big machine. Like those one knows from films and whose function and workings, as in the case of this neural system, is hidden. One just sees the blinking lights.

      • images from video by david and michael

        • Label

          Correlation space: parametrisation a or b

        • Data

          The value of correlation, i.e. the degree of interrelation between each pair of neurons across the whole network at each time step of the simulation. Signals produced by neurons in one minicolumn are "condensed" into one i.e. in this case we work with 9 * 9 signals.

        • Process

          Electrical energy spreads across the network, eliciting the appearance of patterns, because the activity of one neuron is, in some way, more or less related to others. What a neuron "does" has an affect on one or more other cells: that is how an electrical signal "travels" through this net. Correlation is a mathematical measure that tells how much the activity of one neuron is related to that of another, how much a pair is acting in accord. Computing this value for each time step of the simulation and for each possible pair produces 81 * 81 different values. We reinterpret these as sort of "distances" neurons have between them: big distances when neurons are less correlated, and little distances when they act in a very close relation. We are therefore imagining a structure that geometrically transposes the interrelations of the whole network, an evolving structure showing condensation or rarefaction according to the connection strength between neurons. A dynamical system, composed of particles (the neurons) draws this figure in two dimensions by recursively finding the equilibrium of all forces acting between them (the correlations): a strong correlation transposes into a strong attractive force and so on. As the recording of the activity of the neural network is played back and the correlations are recomputed for each time step, the figure folds and unfolds.

          The dynamical system can be parametrised in different ways: how strong the forces on the particles are and of which kind, how fast the particles etc. Different parametrisations lead to different graphical results and different behaviours of the evolving figure.

          Images are sequences of successive images extracted from a video recording of the system's evolution.

        • Question

          Can a complex, potentially high-dimensional structure be transposed into a two dimensional figure which still respects the structure's relative relations? Can a dynamical system solve this problem for us? What kind of trace does this system leave in the result? Is the system's own behaviour separable from the behaviour which is in the data?

        • Association

          na

      • phase trajectories

        • Label

          phase space reconstruction: dimensions n - m

        • Data

          Electric potential measured and summed up over all network's cells at each time step of the recording.

        • Process

          A neural network is an example of a complex dynamical system emerging from the activity of a great number of interconnected and interacting elements, the neurons. This study attempts to apply this perspective literally. Taking the overall electric energy in the neural network computed for each time in the recording as the indicator of its state, the algorithm tries to reconstruct which form a dynamical system underlying the neural network might have. The resulting structure is a so-called "attractor", a geometrical surface in a space of 32 dimensions, on which the neural network's state travels and swirls. Its path leaves traces which can be looked at when projected onto 2-dimensional planes.

        • Question

          Can the network be interpreted as a dynamical systems? Which form might that systems then have? Would it have attractors? How would such attractors bend the space of possible behaviour? Which behaviour of the network might become visible under this assumption?

        • Association

          flight attempt growing mushrooms insect jumping on the wall ever blooming bouquet almost fell into etc.

        • Sequence
        • Media
      • hypercolumns score

        • Label

          Hypercolumns score page N

        • Data

          Trajectories along the reconstructed attractors of the neural network's dynamical system

        • Process

          The trajectories the state of the neural network draws along its attractors are the basis of the graphical score for the piece "hypercolumns". The piece is divided into 15 numbered miniatures of 2 minutes length; each should be played by a different instrument for 10 times in a loop. The miniatures can be played sequentially or at the same time.

          Images are single page out of the score.

        • Question

          Can the neural network be transposed into a piece? Can it be performed? Can musicians learn to play such that a similar behaviour as the network's might appear? Can musicians act like a neural network?

        • Association

          Look like the graphs one might see on the screen of monitoring device in an hospital. In this case the score is not monitoring patients' condition, their heart rate etc., but it tells which condition should be reached in order to be like the neural network. Instructions of how to be a neural network?

    3. cs2 : compass

      • general

        We are working with data from CERN; more precisely from Deep Inelastic Scattering events recorded by the COMPASS detector.

        The COMPASS (COmmon Muon Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy) research project focuses on the qualities of the elementary particles that are building blocks of protons and neutrons: the quarks. To do so protons are "broken apart" by colliding them with high energetic (i.e. fast) and heavy elementary particles, called muons. As a result of a muon hitting a proton, that is from an inelastic scattering event, a cascade of other particles is generated which spray into the 50 meters long detector which records which kind of particles these are, how fast and heavy they are: from this data the trajectories of each particle can be reconstructed and the points (vertices) of collision and interaction between computed.

        The data sets are "CERNphastmDST.hits.09010.root" for the hits data and "CERN39551q2.root" for the reconstructed data. This data originated from a 2004 run: a 160 GeV muon beam scatters of a LiD transversal polarised target.

      • pdf of map of compass detector

        • Label

          COMPASS technical drawing: from x to y meters

        • Data

          Technical drawing of the positioning of the single detector parts of the COMPASS experiment. The drawing consist of seven pages.

        • Process

          Each page of the drawing is stripped of any kind of text and scaled axes and printed.

        • Question

          What kind of aesthetic object is a particle detector? How much space is actually used, in the detector?

        • Association

          Building instructions for a device one does not know what it does until it's built. Some sort of "exploded" view of a machine.

      • causality report

        • Label

          "Causality report": event x plane zt

        • Data

          Of one scattering event, the so-called "hits", i.e. the positions (x,y,z) and the time relative to the event at which a particle has been recorded passing through one of the detector's parts. z is the axis along which the detector is build and along which the beam and the majority of the particles fly.

        • Process

          A scattering event contains a data set of four dimensional positions (x, y, z, t) (three Cartesian coordinated and time) for each of the recorded "hits", i.e. particles passing through the detector and "bumping" on it. These positions should have something that connects them, a sort of more or less hidden cause of their appearance there and then. There should be a cause for each of them that relates to all the others. This cause is inferred graphically with this algorithm:

          1. Take the hits of one event.
          2. Choose two dimension out of the four for each hit: call these u and v.
          3. For each hit find the nearest neighbors in each of the four directions along the chosen axes: +u, -u, +v, -v.
          4. Draw four lines from the hit's position to the found neighbors.

        • Question

          How does a figure drawn from the hits look like? How are those points distributed? Could the detector be seen through the figure? Can a causality be inferred rather then extracted? What kind of physics would produce such kind of trace?

        • Association

          n/a

      • blends

        • Label

          causality report: superimposition of 100 events. plane xt

        • Data

          "Causality report" drawings of hits of 100 events.

        • Process

          The drawings produced in the causality report study for 100 events are superimposed into one image.

        • Question

          What does a statistic of the "causality report" figure reveal? Is there anything appearing through the diffraction figure of the drawings?

        • Association

          Long exposure photograph of a resonating object, vibrating very fast.

      • continuous collision

        • Label

          continuous collision : sample frame

        • Data

          "Hits" position data of multiple events.

        • Process

          The drawing process is similar to that used for the causality report drawings, but a specific choice of the two dimensional plane which has been taken: the plane uses a mixture of z and t hits coordinates along the image's width and an equal mix of the x and y values along the images height. Once the hit position have been projected onto this plane, the drawing algorithm is the same as described for the "causality report". In the "continuous collision" time plays also a role: hits of successive collision events are continuously injected into the drawing while the oldest are deleted: the figure is continuously redrawn.

          The images are still frames of a video recording of "continuous collision" process.

        • Question

          Has the data taking process any kind of recognisable time evolution? What happens if all coordinates that play a role in the data are mixed?

        • Association

          n/a

      • circles for vertices

        • Label

          Positions and errors: at primary vertex in event 1 etc.

        • Data

          So-called "reconstructed" data: On hits data a complex analysis step is applied by physicists in order to reconstruct the particles' trajectories and the position where particles have interacted with each other, the vertices.

        • Process

          The dots are drawn at the position of one reconstructed vertex and at the positions of the trajectories of flying by particles, through the the image's plane. The circles represent the error of the reconstruction algorithm centered around those positions.

        • Question

          How big is the error the reconstruction algorithm produces? How big is the error in space? And in relation to the other objects' error in the scene? What happens in the intersections? Can anything be said?

        • Association

          Strange planetary systems. I wonder how they would evolve.

      • metabolisation
    4. cs3 : cosmo

      • general:

        The material of this case study is data from the "millennium" simulation of the evolution of the universe from the big bang to today. In particular, in this simulations models how the mass distribution observed today in the universe comes into being.

        The simulation divides the time between the big bang and the now into 63 steps. For each of these steps it provides galaxies which would could be found, their three dimensional positions and their masses. Further, the data indicates "descendant" of each galaxy, that is which galaxy in the successive time step would be its "child".

        Positions are normalised with respect to the expansion of the universe. This means that the data spans a region of space which has always the same volume.

        Data sets are produced by queries of the millenium simulation database: "http://gavo.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Millennium/".

      • none

        That is, they try to adapt their models of the basic forces of the universe and their evolution in time in order to fit their models with the observations. Reaching a better fit between model and observations would then mean having achieved a better understanding on the universe's history and its workings.

      • first pdfs

        • Label

          Galaxy clustering: time n, planar projection

        • Data

          Galaxy positions at one specific time step.

        • Process

          Positions of galaxies at a time frame are used as input for a drawing algorithm that produces three dimensional figures from sets of points. This algorithm first reduces the number of points by recursively condensing three nearest points into their barycentre. Then it produces a figure by joining points with lines in such way that only triangles are produced and the resulting structure is closed with no holes.

        • Question

          n/a

        • Association

          Icebergs of galaxies, what happens if they melt?

      • objs

        • Label

          Galaxies triangulation: time n

        • Data

          The three dimensional objects produced by the galaxy clustering.

        • Process

          The drawing process producing three dimensional objects (see above) recursively reduces points by triangulation, successively condensing groups of three points into one. These figures show a trace of this process for some of the produced objects.

        • Question

          What trace does the drawing algorithm leave? How can those traces, usually kept hidden, made visible? What is that what we ignore? Where is the difference between the drawing and the data?

        • Association

          Multiple vanishing points. Black holes hidden in between the galaxies?

      • traces

        • Label

          Galaxies genealogy tree: galaxy n, plane

        • Data

          Descendancy relationships between galaxies across time.

        • Process

          Choose galaxy at an early time. A line is drawn from its position in the universe to the position of its descendent and the position of its descendent and so forth. The result is a segmented path joining the positions of the galaxies which are in a family. The path is seen from one of the planes in the (x, y, z) three dimensional space.

        • Question

          How do galaxies descend from each other? What kind of path does a galaxy family draw in the universe?

        • Association

          Surprisingly random paths, bouncing here and there, wildly. Somehow I realise I would expect galaxies to behave more cautiosly.

      • christs (detail)

        • Label

          Universe genealogy tree: view from plane xy

        • Data

          Descendancy relationships between galaxies across the universe's evolution.

        • Process

          Starting from a galaxy, a line is drawn from its position in the universe to the position of its descendent. Only galaxies with a mass greater then 0.1% of the maximum are considered. All descendacy paths for all galaxies are drawn into the same figure but projected on different planes of the space (x, y, z, t) (t is time).

        • Question

          Is there any kind of evolution structure we could see when following this descendance indication?

        • Association

          Looks remarkably complex and somehow chaotic. Definitely more then expected. The borders of the universe seem to play a big role.

          Seems as something is hung and tightened on a frame. Like leather drying in the sun.

          n/a

      • foams

        • Label

          cosmological foam: time step n, plane xy

        • Data

          Chosen one time frame of the simulation, the positions of the galaxies.

        • Process

          Each galaxy position at one time step is joined with a line to the four nearest galaxies in each quadrant (at the same time).

        • Question

          What kind of structure or figure do galaxies position subtend? Is there something characteristic about the galaxies distribution in the universe? Is there a pattern?

        • Association

          Foams of different density: the older universe is much denser.

      • heritage

        • Label

          percolation

        • Data

          Positions along z of galaxies at all times.

        • Process

          The drawing process make a line between a galaxy position and the nearest to it along the z axis, but in the next and previous time step. The assumption is that the energy and the mass of a galaxy would in some way be injected into the future galaxies which are nearest to it. At the beginning there are few galaxies, but density of increases fast to a maximum which is then maintained almost steadily.

        • Question

          How does energy and / or mass distribute across the universe during its evolution?

        • Association

          Percolation phenomenon. Water infiltrating into terrain.

    5. cs4 : genes

      • general:

        The human DNA is composed by 23 chromosomes: long stripes on which all human genes are placed. All chromosomes are tightly packed within cells therefore forming knots and very entangled structures in which parts of one chromosome get very near to some other part of itself or of another chromosome. At these points genes on the chromosomes interact with each other activating or deactivating specific mechanisms of the cell they are in. DNA packaging has therefore also a functional role in steering the workings of a cell.

        The data we worked with in this case study, consists of lists of pairs of positions on chromosomes which are found to be interacting with each other. Genes are categorised in "promoter" or "enhancer" genes. There are two data sets labelled "human1" and "human2" corresponding to two successive experiments using different techniques.

      • first pdfs

        • Label

          Interactions: all / promoter promoter / promoter enhancer

        • Data

          Interactions between promoter and enhancer genes in and across humans chromosomes. Positions are indicated with three values:

          1. chromosome number
          2. position on the chromosome
          3. type of position: promoter or enhance ('p' or 'e')

          The data lists interactions as of a tuple of two positions. The data is taken from the "human1" data set.

        • Process

          Positions (chromosome number and position on chromosome) are taken as coordinates of points in an image. They are rescaled to fit in the image's dimensions. That is, height is divided by 24 (chromosomes 23 + Y or X) equally distant positions while positions on chromosomes are rescaled to fit the image's width. A line is drawn between points in the image corresponding to interacting positions.

        • Question

          How do interactions between genes spread out? Especially, how many interactions are there that span across chromosomes (diagonal and vertical lines)? Is there some clustering to be seen? Knots?

        • Association

          Dystopian street networks.

      • crawlers (imperfect)

        • Label

          genome combing: still image 1

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human1" data set.

        • Process

          The process is based on a model where chromosomes are simulated as long strings (the lines) composed by many joints. Each joint can interact with some other joint on the same string or on some other string according to a correspondence mapping DNA folding data to joint positions in the modelled strings.

          Interactions between joints are activated for groups of three mutually connected positions, visually marked by triangles, which are pulled together. When the interaction has brought the joints near enough the triangle passes on to other three joints to pull. There are seven triangles at the same time.

          The algorithm performs a long adaptation of the chromosome structure, trying to optimise localities first, instead of tackling the global problem. Therefore, the algorithm converges very slowly to an equilibrium.

          The images are takes from a video recording of the algorithm's performance.

        • Question

          Which spatial arrangement(s) of chromosomes would have produced the interactions we read from the data set? A classical inverse problem; which are know to be hard kind of problems. The process algorithm searches for possible solutions.

          How is it possible to compute the spatial distribution that leads to a specific set of interactions? What kind of algorithm would that be? How would it act on the data? What kind of performance would it produce?

        • Association

          Patiently combing through a bunch of rebellious chromosome hairs.

      • svgs of previous human tests knots

        • Label

          DNA knitting: simulation sample 1

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human1" data set.

        • Process

          (Attention: similar but slightly different than before)

          The process is based on a model where chromosomes are simulated as long strings (the lines) composed by many joints. Each joint can interact with some other joint on the same string or on some other string according to a correspondence mapping the DNA folding data to joint positions in the modelled strings.

          Starting from a distribution of the chromosomes as randomly crossing straight lines, the algorithm performs a very long and intense computation, trying to find which spatial distribution of the chromosome strings best approximates the interaction data. It knits a knot from a bunch of straight strings.

          Images are takes from a video recording of the algorithm's knitting performance.

        • Question

          Which possible spatial arrangement(s) of chromosomes would have produced the interactions we have in the data?

          How does the a chromosome knot look like?

        • Association

          I wonder which task is more difficult: knotting something into a specific form or disentangling it? I still have to finish learning knots for my sailing licence exam.

          Does compression always come with an increase of complexity or is it just a matter of perspective?

      • human2 short and long

        • Label

          curls : chormosome n plane xy n joints

        • Data

          Interactions between genes in and across chromosomes. "human2" data set. This data set presents not interaction across chromosomes: this is a major difference from the "human1" data set.

        • Process

          This data set presents no interactions which reach across chromosomes. All interactions are taking place in the same chromosome. Therefore, just single chromosomes are considered.

          We want to find out how a chromosome has to bend itself such that that specific positions touch and interact with each other. To do this we use an algorithm which simulates the chromosome as a string composed by many joints: there is a clear correspondence between joints on the string and positions an a chromosome. Joints on the string which are subject to both the forces that keep the string together (successive joints keep all at the same distance) and the forces which pull joints together according to the interaction data of the "human2" set. The algorithm simulates this system until a configuration is reached that can be considered an optimal approximation of the data.

          Images depict the end configuration of the string the algorithm has found, projected on one plane of the three dimensional space.

        • Question

          see above

        • Association

          Tumbleweeds. earthquake recordings Do not touch.

    6. metaboliser

      • general The "metaboliser" is a process which digests data sets of any kind. It outputs visual and sonic forms which depend on the qualities of the input data it , without applying any interpretations or analyses to it. It treats all data equally, but still is sensible to its internal structure.

        The "metaboliser" is a dynamical system, composed of oscillating an interacting elements. Data, values stored in the form of tuples of some length, inject energy in its elements and influence the coupling between them. As it is digested by the system, data sediments in the mechanical structure of the metaboliser, it becomes part of it.

        Any action or behaviour the metaboliser will show after the digestion of the data, are both the effect of its mechanisms and of the modifications the data has provoked in it. The visual and sonic forms, formulations, theories and signs it produces are inextricable compounds emerging from the interaction between the metaboliser process and the data.

      • data

        The images are sequences of successive frames from video recordings of the metaboliser activity after the digestion of a specific data set. The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its internal elements: the length of lines connecting points depict the degree of interrelation occurring between two of those elements.

      • question

        Is there a way to escape the hegemony of data? What happens if one completely ignores where data comes from? What happens if one treat all the data the same, as a sequence of numbers? Are there still any kind of specific qualities to be found?

    1. events NO!
      1. imperfect photos selection 10 or something
      2. zkm?
        1. Score hypercolumns 2 pages
        2. performance 2 photos
      3. ail
        1. speaker matrix
        2. fpu system
          1. screen of sc
          2. graph of non themalosation
          3. bulbs photo

DONE text

  • Gerhard

    Particle Fever

    Data exerts an irresistible fascination. How contagious this fascination can become has been staged effectively in the 2013 documentary “Particle Fever” directed by Mark Levinson, a film director with a PhD in theoretical physics from UC Berkeley. In his film, physicists at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research CERN were followed during seven years while trying to create the conditions to detect the Higgs boson, an elementary particle hypothesised half a century ago. The film exposes the scientists’ frenzy about the first data to be generated by the most expensive experiment in history. Besides nourishing the propaganda mandatory in legitimising such a gigantic endeavour, the film manages to strikingly document the enigmatic obsession with data, coming across as authentic affect of the scientists involved.

    Data promises new information and is traded as raw material for crafting new knowledge. But information does not lie bare in the data. It has to be extracted from the data by separating it from what is considered noise, i.e. irrelevant with respect to a particular perspective or question. Exploring data usually consists in purifying, analysing, and interpreting it according to a certain interest. There is of course no guarantee to find in the data what one is looking for. Moreover, in looking for something in particular, many other aspects will be overlooked. Likewise, things one has not been looking for may emerge and attract attention. This is why every data exploration leaves the doubt behind, that more information could lie dormant in the data, sustaining the enigmatic attraction mentioned above. Given the abundance of data produced today, one may even wonder if not most of what could be of interest is actually being overlooked.

    As opposed to what its etymology may suggest, data, as the plural form of datum (lat. for “the given”), is not given but made. It is the result of measurement or simulation, both highly controlled and potentially complex procedures of acquiring, formatting and collecting data. Data does not exist without observation. As observation is subject to various biases (e.g. confirmation, processing, or observational bias, as well as “cargo cult” practices) and interacts with the phenomenon observed (known as the observer effect), a large number of counter measures have to be taken to compensate for these undesired effects. Especially with large and singular experimental setups (such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN) it is difficult (or even impossible) to judge how successful these counter measures are. My physics teacher in high school used to repeat ad nauseam: “Wer misst, misst meist Mist” – the one who measures, mostly measures rubbish.

    Transposition

    Transposition means to take something from somewhere and put it somewhere else. It is simple. For instance, taking a glass of water standing on a table and putting it into the dishwasher. For this to happen, somebody must have a notion of a something being placed somewhere and how this placement relates it to the place. The glass containing water stands on the table. Glass, water, and table are subjected to the laws of gravity, which is why the glass can contain the water while keeping the table dry. Something containing something else while being supported by yet another thing.

    Probability

    Last summer I used to work outside at the graden table. On two days in a row at about the same time, an airplane would cast its shadow on me for a brief moment. The first day I was surpised about the experience of the brief alteration of the light. The second day I thought I was dreaming. What are the odds for such an event to recur?

    Promise

    Transposition is the promise for something more interesting to happen than with most other terms sharing the same prefix. Take transformation, for instance, which is too predictable and thus boring. Or translation, which is close to impossible and hence probably a waste of time. Possible exceptions being transcendence or transmutation, or, even better, transubstantiation, changing the substance of something without changing its appearance. Transposition also seems to work well as a nucleus of condensation or crystallisation, for creating clouds of connotations. At least this is how I experienced it so far in the context of the project “Transpositions: Artistic Data Exploration”, which was intentionally started without a clear definition of the concept. It is a placeholder for something to be considered later, expected (or at least hoped) to emerge from the situation created by the project. Transposition is a self-referential strategy preventing practice aligning too much with established concepts, always demanding one more step of transposition. In this sense complication seems to be at the heart of transposition.

  • David

    the constructivist trap leads into a process thinking of hos we arrive to knowledge formulations

    description of the metabolisator system

    • The metabolisator

      Data is "done", it is "facta", produced. It is the consequence of squeezing out of the reality some juice, some material, using the for the scientific endeavor specific detecting devices as well as the theoretical known theoretical concepts, ideas which are also part of a technological toolset which is at the disposition of the scientists. So, data, is done. It is constructed.

  • Introduction

    GE: I am also opting for a positive notion of complication, which we may understand as an unsystematic form of destabilisation and complexification as a systematic one. The latter would correspond to our usage of dynamical systems to confront a data set with a complex system to find out how exactly it will settle in this situation, in this context. The former, complication, may correspond to what you Michael call a “non-formal solution”: an unsystematic intervention in the transpositional chain or process, guided by artistic principles.

    MS: Crucially, in theory, we could claim that whatever we did could also have been arrived at through formal operations, but this is not what we did in practice. Rather, we have positioned two distinct modes in close proximity without deciding which of the two might eventually be epistemically successful. Ultimately, therefore, I have to opt for the possibility that complexification will not replace complication. However, in saying this, I also opt—against David—for a positive understanding of “complication.”

    Under this kind of re-interpretation of "complication", I might agree on an non-negative understanding of the term.

    Personally however, I find it difficult to confront my experience working with and on transpositions with such clear cut borders between positive or negative, systematic and unsystematic, formal and non-formal as to what would be driven by artistic principles and what not or between distinct modes. A discourse based on dichotomies might fail, in my opinion, to address the fundamental complexity of the practice we are operating with in reality. A praxis in which oppositions do not remain invariant, but are entangled and mutually interacting in an transposition process.

    MS: This argument also further explains what transposition might mean here. First, transpositions are unrewarding dialectically; we do not get further down into anything more truthful. Epistemically positive or negative registers have to be abandoned. Transpositions simply move material from A to B, and, as it is moved, it settles differently. Second, if we can speak of “truthful” actions at all, it is not on the level of meaning but on the level of operation: as we move material from A to B, we are keen not to have them contaminated with something completely different, including our own expectations and taste, but also with computational artefacts. In other words, we want to maintain a phenomenon as we completely change context, something for which there is no referent guaranteeing anything such as “truthful” representation. And third—this time not as a question between making and writing—transpositions can also guide the relationship between material and form. However, not as the right or wrong form for a material—that is, fitting representations—but as form and material co-producing each other in a transposition.

    • Rests

      I think, the perspective I was hoping to formulate was instead based on an interpretation of transposition in terms of operation rather then difference; as a process generating the path between one position or artefact and another. In retrospect I would formulate my motivation as the interest in finding invariants rather than distinctions. By invariant I do not mean qualities which make A and B the same. Rather I intend the axes subtending the space where the transposition movement unfolds, the dimensions which actually generate their differential positions.

      and to shed light on how oppositions are actually entangled in it.

      An understanding of transposition which decays into the identification of two distinct objects or even opposing positions, say A and B, is inherent in its own notion and seems to enter also into the discourse about it.

      This might be naive, but I find these couples too dependent from the perspective they are looked at, from the context they are used in as well as from the narrative they serve, to be clarifying.

      I would like to try to take a step back and look at the path our discourse has taken here.

      I really would opt for a kind discussion in which rhetoric tools would rather not be use. It makes very difficult to exit these kind of arguments with a clearer idea of what is actually been said.

      I seem to have provoked exactly what

      Actually my primary aim was to avoid terms that have either a negative or positive inkling; which

      I might agree on

      rather, using the

      impeding menaing that it doesn not make its own narration evident or clear.

      tearing up a space between formal and non-formal approaches which looks and demands back what the formality is and how much it does enter processes of data transformation

      Time to transcend cathegories: which is a fundamental propension implicit in transposition

      search for invariants

      I may accept this kind of re-interpretation of meaning of "complication",

      pitfall of this kind of dialectic path we have taken here. Probably my bla, from my perspective, of the negative connotation of the word "complication" was the origin fo this kind of discussion, but I

Proofreading

  • 113 to 125 cancel "black holes etc." Multiple vanishing points. Black holes hiding in between the galaxies -> Multiple vanishing points
  • 151 to 182 add "of" The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its internal elements: -> The videos show the evolution of its global state, constructed from the unfolding relationships and interactions between the state its of internal elements:
  • 238 to 244 correct "if" with "is", cancel commas The image surface, if subdivided into 2430 equal subareas, each assigned to one neuron -> The image surface is subdivided into 2430 equal subareas each assigned to one neuron.
  • 245 to 256 plus 258 correct whole incomplete sentence The dynamical system can be perametrised… -> The dynamical system can be parametrised in different ways controlling who strong the forces acting on the particles are, abd of which kind, how fast the particles are etc."
  • 257 and 258 texts are swapped text of page 258 is for page 257
  • 274 and 275 add "a": This looks like the graphs one might see on the screen of monitoring device in an hospital. -> This looks like the graphs one might see on the a screen of monitoring device in an hospital.

sound track

  • Metaboliser parameters
  • Gerhard Player

    <2018-01-19 Fri 13:00>–<2018-01-19 Fri 14:00>

    • Ideas
      • Der AB spielt gleichzeitig Transpositionen (TPs) und Feldaufnahmen (FAs) in variablem Mischungsverhältnis. Wovon das Mischungsverhältnis abhängt, muss noch geklärt werden.
      • Die Steuerung des AB basiert auf einem dynamische System (DS) mit so vielen Elementen wie Seitenintervallen (im Moment 72 - siehe File im Anhang).
      • Wenn eine Seite ausgewählt wird, dann wird jenem Element des DS Energie zugeführt, das der Seite zugeordnet ist.
      • Die Eingabe einer Seitenzahl führt dabei auf jeden Fall dazu, dass eine passende TP ausgewählt und abgespielt wird.
      • Wenn eine neue TP gestartet wird, muss eine eventuell bereits spielende ausgeblendet werden. Gleichzeitig kann die aktuelle FA auch ausgetauscht werden, muss aber nicht.
      • Wenn der Zustand eines der Elemente des DS einen Schwellwert übersteigt, löst das DS die Auswahl einer neuen TP aus dem entsprechenden Seitenintervall aus und gibt die entsprechende Seitenzahl aus.
      • Wie die Auswahl einer TP in einem Seitenintervall geschieht muss noch geklärt werden. Details können auch von der Art des Seitenintervalls abhängen.
      • Wir werden auch Materialien aus Stockholm verwenden (z.B. Complexity and Complication).
      • Wir werden noch mehr “passende” FAs aussuchen (z.B. von Martin).
      • Mitte Februar sollte der neue AB fertig sein.
    • Page ranges

      3 - 5 10 - 11 17 - 18 32 - 33 44 - 45 66 - 67 102 - 103

      104 cs3 data MILLENIUM

      152 - 154 232 - 233

      242 cs1 data NEURO

      337 - 338 534 - 535 605 - 606 643 - 644

      624 cs4 data DNA 672 cs2 data CERN

      709 - 710 723 - 724 805 - 806 colophon

      Gerhard

      6 - 9 DRCI 12 - 16 DRCI 19 - 31 DRCI 34 - 43 DRCI 46 - 60 Metabolisations COMPASS 61 - 65 DRCI detector groups 68 - 77 DRCI detector groups 78 - 98 Making of DRCI 99 - 101 DRCI sound analysis 283 - 303 Killen 304 - 318 spikes noosc 319 - 330 metabolisation spikes 331 - 336 DA TA rush traces 339 - 340 alpha sync 341 - 363 Rebody 463 - 475 Metabolisation genes 715 - 722 Metabolisation of galaxy cluster data (WRONG TITLE) 725 - 729 Metabolisation of galaxy cluster data (WRONG TITLE) 730 - 736 xray images 788 - 802 Rattler

      David

      105 - 152 millenium simulation 155 - 186 metabolisations 243 - 249 electrical activity 250 - 257 Correlation space 1 258 - 262 Correlation space 2 263 - 278 phase space reconstruction 279 - 282 hypercolumns 625 - 627 Interactions p/e 628 - 639 genome combing 640 - 643 genome knitting 645 - 649 Curls DNA 650 - 670 Strings DNA 673 - 680 COMPASS technical drawing 681 - 694 Causality report 695 - 706 Continuous collision

      Michael

      187 - 209 Brain 210 - 214 Freeform 215 - 220 Paris 222 - 231 Distance Circles 234 - 241 Distance Circles 364 plate 365 - 462 Gene interactions 476 plate 477 - 533 Collision (various) 536 - 604 Lansner 607 - 623 Lansner 707 - 708 Positions and errors 711 - 714 Positions and errors 737 - 787 Galaxy clusters 803 - Treetops 804 ? plate 807 - 810 Treetops

  • Player

Addresses

  1. Gerhard Mallot PhD CERN PO Box Z02500 CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland
  2. Mr Espen Sommer Eide Bergen Center for Electronic Arts C. Sundts gate 55 5004 Bergen Norway
  3. Herr Carsten Seiffarth singuhr e.v. Danziger Straße 101 D-10405 Berlin Germany
  4. Mr Johnathan Impett Orpheus Instituut Korte Meer 12 9000 Gent Belgium
  5. Prof. Sally Jane Norman New Zealand School of Music Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington 6140 New Zealand
  6. Ms Monica Bello CERN J19200 CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland
  7. Prof. Klauer Giorgio Conservatorio di Musica Benedetto Marcello di Venezia Sestiere di San Marco, 2810 30124 Venezia Italy
  8. Prof. Pietro Polotti Conservatorio Tartini via Ghega 12 34132 Trieste Italy
  9. Lecturer Paolo Girol Estonian Academy Of Music And Theatre Composition Department Tatari 13 Tallinn 10116 Estonia
  10. Mario Verdicchio PhD Università degli Studi di Bergamo Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, dell'Informazione e della Produzione viale Marconi, 5 24044 Dalmine (BG) Italy
  11. André Rangel Macedo PhD Universidade Católica Portuguesa Research Center For Science And Technology Of The Arts Rua de Diogo Botelho, 1327 4169-005 Porto Portugal
  12. Assistant Professor Miguel Carvalhais Faculdade de Belas Artes da Universidade do Porto Design Department Av. Rodrigues de Freitas, 265 4040-021 Porto Portugal
  13. Assistant Professor Luísa Ribas Faculdade de Belas-Artes da Universidade de Lisboa Largo da Academia Nacional de Belas Artes 14, 1200-005 Lisboa, Portugal
  14. Luís Nunes Faculdade de Belas Artes da Universidade do Porto Av. Rodrigues de Freitas, 265 4040-021 Porto Portugal

Catalogue Presentation MUMUTH

<2018-10-12 Fri>–<2018-10-13 Sat>

  • Signale Graz Barlow

    <2018-10-11 Thu>

  • Gerhard, Andreas, Martin, Transpostions

    <2018-06-27 Wed 11:00>–<2018-06-27 Wed 12:00>

  • Gerhard, Michael, Skype

    <2018-02-06 Tue 11:00>–<2018-02-06 Tue 12:00>

    1. audio player
    2. x genome data
    3. x dots video files raspi
    4. x text Graz
    5. x addresses catalogue
  • Gerhard Martin rehearsals MUMUTH

    <2018-09-21 Fri>–<2018-09-22 Sat>

  • Text Speaker Matrix

    A neural network is an tangled compound of objects. A convoluted collection of nodes and connections between them, an inextricable knot in which pulses spread from one point to the others in complicated paths. Each single element contributes to the behaviour of the whole network: a vibration that pulsates in a strange oscillation and appearing as an coherent phenomenon.

    Speaker Matrix uses data of a simulated neural network modelling how memory recall processes in our brains might function. The sound installation moulds this data, expands and stretches it in time and space, by slowing it down and, without breaking its internal connections, kneading it into a rectangular shaped dough. Into this "mass", 30 probes are inserted, arranged in a matrix: these are auscultation points through which what happens around each position is made audible by one loudspeaker.

    As all loudspeakers play at the same time, the Speaker Matrix transposes the behaviour of the neural network into a sound that, according to the intricate spreading of signals through the network, exhibits spatial movements, vibrations that travel through the loudspeaker arrangement and through the exhibition space.

    • Notes

      The whole network vibrates and pulsates , but at the same time hiding how each element in the network contributes to it.

      transate into a spatial movements of the

      spatial

      All these points are always activated

      attempting to bridge

      and moulds it into something different

      brigde between dimensions

      knead

      makes it impossible to perceive

      The speaker Matrix is a sound installation

      Departing from data of the activity of a simulated network of neurons which attempt to model memory recall processes of the human brain

      multiple points of auscultation, probing the behaviour of the network and transposing it into a temporal and spatial acoustic phenomenon.

      by probing the activity of a group of neurons around

      this data is then audified

DONE Catalogue Browser check Granstroms code

Browser David appear

<2018-05-07 Mon 15:00>–<2018-05-07 Mon 16:00>

Browser David appear

<2018-09-17 Mon 13:30>–<2018-09-17 Mon 14:30>

Da-ta catalogue howto

[1] $ brew install yarn Warning: yarn 1.3.2 is already installed [2] $ git clone https://<user>@bitbucket.org/dkg/transpositions-catalogue.git [3] $ cd transpositions-catalogue [4] $ yarn install [5] $ yarn run dev

Kommenatare:

[1] Du wirst einen anderen Packagemanager verwenden [2] Du hast einen Bitbucket-User, oder? [3] wenn alles klappt, dann hast Du das Verzeichnis [4] installiert alle notwendigen Node module in nodemodules (node musst Du installiert haben) [5] started einen Webbrowser und die App lokal zum testen

David Granström appear

<2018-08-06 Mon 10:00>

David Granström appear

<2018-11-05 Mon 15:00>–<2018-11-05 Mon 16:00>

DONE Researchcatalogue posters

  1. Rebody
  2. Lansner
  3. Catalogue (performance)
  4. Jackfield
  5. Clusters
  6. (Metaboliser)
  7. (Continuous collision)
  8. (foams sequence)
  9. (dynamics with bulbs video)
  10. (genetics + faster videos)

Metaboliser Text

At the starting point of the Metaboliser's

Compass text (inflatable)

Scattering describes the process in which a particle with high energy called a beam collides with another, the target. In the deep inelastic scattering the energy of the beam is so high that the target breaks apart, revealing its constitutive elements. Usually, in physics, the collection of the smaller, potentially simpler, parts that something can be broken into is said to be its "spectrum". This is very much like speaking of the spectrum of a sound when we calculate which sum of single frequencies it is equal to.

At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing and understanding the characteristics of the spectrum of the proton, a primary building block of atoms and of all the matter with which we can interact. A very high energy beam of elementary particles called muons (a type of heavier electron) collides with the target protons that breaks into its spectrum, the quarks. These spray into the 50 meter long spectrometer, where they cause effects which can be detected.

In opposition to the somewhat childish but seemingly effective strategy of analysing something by breaking it into pieces to see 'how it works', in this case the products of this breaking apart actually remain ineffable. This touches the very essence of the problematic mode of existence of the quantistic world, bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty. To illuminate how the indeterminacy of these processes seems to infect the whole apparatus of the COMPASS experiment is the focus of this case study. We intend as 'apparatus' not only the spectrometer as a measuring device, but the whole aggregate of scientific theories, technical tools and social interactions in which the experiment is embedded. In particular we observe how the "reconstruction" process, mediated by multiple steps of re-interpretation and interpolation of the data, is not only a necessary step of analysis, but also a generative transformation which produces new forms.

At the COMPASS project at CERN, physicists are interested in observing the inner structure of the proton, a primary building block of matter. By causing collision with a high velocity stream of other elementary particles, the mouns, they can "break it open" an then observe the constituents of the proton as they spray into the 50m long detector. This apparatus touches on the very essence the quantistic phenomena, bound to remain in a state of spatial and temporal uncertainty, and indeterminacy which diffuses into the whole experimental appararatus. An uncertainty that might be seen as an error increasing factor, a disturbing element in the chain of iterative analysis and reconstruction processes; or it might be re-interpreted as the source of new forms.

QED

Tasks [2/3]

  • [X] Upload and reformat QED data arrays
  • [X] SC recomplile?
  • [ ] Contact Gattringer for QED data

Old

Opening Spaces for Understanding Vetenskapsrådet Site call

DONE Ask Alois

Ask isf the collaboration is possible

DONE Call Giacomo

Threads

VRserver

Took some time to find out that a hidden "WHEELEDARCBALL" profile was registered… Unregistering it gives the possibility to register custom camera profiles.

Ugly bug for 2d drawing: call scene.beginScreenDrawing(); and endScreenDrawing(); two times (!) then it works.

Prückl Stubentor

Space

To read

Edger Morin: On Complexity

Melanie Morin: Complexity: a guided tour

Transmutation

  1. Alchemie
  2. Transmutation of molecules

Rattle

Rewrite with no blocks

Phases

:ORDERED: t

Rebody

Find videos, upload

Huddersfield

<2016-05-06 Fri>–<2016-05-08 Sun>

Grz -> Dub (No Trolley!)

<2016-05-06 Fri 07:00>–<2016-05-06 Fri 11:30>

Dub -> Grz (No Trolley!)

<2016-05-08 Sun 17:55>–<2016-05-08 Sun 23:15>

Notes

  • CV
  • Challenges
    1. What are the consequences of representing sounds as point sources as in standard spatialisation techniques? Can we develop alternatives?
    2. How can the spatial dimension be thought of as an integral part of sound synthesis?
    3. What are the consequences and limitations for composers and audience's listening attitude introduced by a stardardisation of spatialisation techniques?
    • Notes 5 mins
      1. IEM
        • I'm working at the IEM, the institute bla in Graz
          • More to myself?
        • One of the institute's main research themes is in the development and the refinement of spatial acoustics and spatialisation algorithms
        • Research is mostly focussed around ambisonics algorithm.
        • During the years lot of know how has been accumulated on and around ambisonics
        • Also thanks to the presence of multiple systems and venues where it is possible to work with multichannel audio systems.
        • A great number of artisitc productions using ambisonics have also been supported.
      2. artistic research projects
        • The Spatialisation theme has not only been approached from the perspective of research in acoustics, but has also been the main theme for several artistic research project such as
        • The main aim was to further the practice of electroacoustic composition especially with respect to the treatment of the spatial in music
        • the OSIL project, which is ongoing "Orchestrating Space by Icosahedral Loudspeaker"
        • and The choreography of sound project, where I was part of the project's research team.
        • Two of the themes which were central in the choreography of sound project I believe to offer an interesting discussion points in our round.
      3. Representational perspective
        • In the project we explored alternatives to thinking space through existing spatialisation approaches.
        • in particular we think that these approaches conceive spatialisation as solving a problem of representation.
        • Spatialisation is often understood as providing a window into a virtual sound space, which is represented by rendering processes trying to emulate the effects of physical sound propagation.
        • The assumption is that there are objects (sound sources) which are depicted of rendered audible through spatialisation.
        • are there alternative to that? are there other ways of thinking about the spatial properties of sound in an electroacoustic composition?
        • A possibility could be to think about the spatial in music is to compose sound such that its spatial properties (maybe extent or volume etc.) appear in the listener's experience.
        • So compose sound such that it has specific affordances for its spatial properties to emerge.
      4. separation sound spalialisation <-> synthesis
        • as a consequence we thought of spatialisation as extending onto all levels of sonic organisation
        • Standard approaches usually present spatialisiation as a separate, step of composition.
        • A more deep integration may be an alternative where it is not enough to include spatialisation paramaters in the composition
        • rather, the spatialisation algorithm itself subject to composition
        • that is, a composition also take place on the level of the spatialisation technique.
        • a composition of sound which integrates organisation in time and space.
      5. Incribing sound in a specific hall, not for all venues and different sound projecttion systems
      6. No sweet spot
    • Gerhard's text
      • Loudspeaker artist
        • composer and sound artist (using loudspeakers => loudspeaker artist)
          • planning to use other computer controller sound sources
          • like with all culture technique, practice precedes concept formation
        • sound as a spatio-temporal phenomenon
          • audition best adapted to explore spatio-temporal phenomena
            • phenomena where spatial and temporal aspects are equally important
            • dynamics of neuronal systems (how our brain works)
            • spreading of an infectious disease in an epidemic
            • thunderstorm, look in the night sky (ZR!)
          • listening: activity to engage with spatio-temporal phenomena
          • allows to reflect about complex relationship of objects in time and space
          • when thinking about time and space, sound is a powerful model (slow, ZR!)
          • spatio-temporal phenomena of similar complexity than our everyday world
        • my practice
          • possibility to compose the temporal and spatial features of sound
            • rhythm, pitch, timbre and their interaction with the environment
          • concerned with uniformisation of loudspeaker projected sound
        • talk today
          • report about an artistic research project called CoS
          • in particular about an installation called Zeitraum
          • context explaining how this bold and minimalistic work came about
      • Loudspeaker
        • loudspeaker is a fantastic instrument
        • changes in electrical current => changes in sound pressure (sound)
          • electrical current designed and transformed with DSP / computer
        • but we use it in a very limited ways
        • most of the time we like to think of it as a transparent transducer
      • Directivity
        • as compared to other sources, speakers have uniform radiation pattern
          • at IEM we develop alternative approaches (IKO)
        • usually we can tell if a sound is projected through a speaker or not
          • experiments IRCAM
        • identity of a natural source is also determined by its radiation pattern
        • how do we become aware of it
          • interaction of the source with the acoustic of the space
          • how source excites room, how rooms responds
          • movement of the source and / or movement of the listener (e.g. trumpet)
      • Ensembles
        • we have standard ways of positioning loudspeakers in rooms
          • optimised for certain purposes (2-ch stereo, 5.1, Ambisonics, WFS)
          • reduce the influence of the acoustics of the hall
          • most of the time speaker are pointed at listener
        • they are based on assumptions
          • we know where the listeners are
          • that they sit
          • do not move (much, only head)
            • important to get used to perspective
      • Spatialisation
        • spat is about positioning a sound source at a location in a space
        • concept of rendering sources, placing them on an acoustic canvas
        • corresponding spatial recording and reproduction techniques
          • stereophony, Ambisonics, [WFS]
        • 2 or more speakers in a particular arrangement functioning as a
          • display on which sound is rendered
          • forms window onto a sound stage, sources can be placed and move
        • sound is treated as a sound source
          • typically as a point source, appearing in a 2d or 3d panorama
        • concept of spatialisation: source is independent of its spatial position
          • sound and space are thought independently
          • sound exists first and is then put into space
        • this is common in SMC research
        • shapes the way sound artists and composers deal with sound and space
        • spat deeply ingrained in our practices, tools, thinking about sound & space
        • built into all our audio tools
          • 2-channel stereophony: rendering is built into mixing desks (panpot)
        • sound and space is such a wonderful and rich topic
        • it is a reduction to think sound and space only in terms of spatialisation
        • many techniques also have serious drawbacks
          • sweet spot, unless you use wave field synthesis or mono
        • technological promises, most techniques under deliver
        • ideology of technical feasibility neglects complexity of acoustic phenomena
        • listening via loudspeakers is a cultural technique
          • they precede the concepts generated from them
          • our use of speakers determines the concepts which may form
        • acoustics of the projection should interfere as little as possible, but:
        • sound and space are inseparable
          • sound is a complex spatio-temporal phenomenon
          • you cannot separate the temporal from the spatial aspects
          • if you try to remove the space from a sound, you will change its identity
            • billiard balls, 3ms
      • Alternatives
        • in my practice I am experimenting with alternatives, examples:
        • mix real and virtual space, allow movement: Raumfaltung
        • Cataboliser, structure space, stage for audience, work with reflections
        • Movement links space and time: Random Access Lattice
      • Places to be inhabited
        • create place audience wants to engage with
        • create rich sonic experience, places the audience wants to inhabit
        • with loudspeakers, usually many
        • usually quite site specific, mostly in an acoustic sense
        • create a place by inscribing sound into space
        • writing as an interaction between materials (sound, acoustics)
      • The Choreography of Sound
        • was the title of an artistic research project
        • developed and carried out together with RGA
        • funded by Austrian Science Fund FWF (PEEK)
          • further develop artistic concepts in a highly experimental context
          • a limited period of being liberated from the forces of the art market
        • was about rethinking sound spatialisation
          • alternative ways of thinking sound and space
          • recalibrate our listening
        • create a lab for that
          • used our concert hall in Graz as an aesthetic laboratory (experience)
          • mix practices: electroacoustic composition, sound art
          • mix of concert and installation situation
            • audience may move, duration may be fixed
        • arrived at rather extreme formulations compared to thinking in terms of spat
          • => Zeitraum
      • Aesthetic lab
        • introduce Ligeti hall, video
        • speaker positions for hemisphere
        • use time in hall to listen
        • usually we listen to our sound material in the studio, compose in the studio
        • use the speaker and hall in which the piece will be performed
        • first exercises: orientation of speakers
          • even if they are very far away, gives the sound an identity
        • usually the speakers are pointed towards the audience
        • avoid room reflections in the sound projections
        • but room reflections give the sound identity
        • what makes the sound engage with the room
        • compose this engagement with the room, the space, the place
        • shape sounds such that they don’t sound as if they were projected
        • but forms a unit with the loudspeaker, its radiation pattern and the space
          • irrespectively of the listening position
        • use speakers as individual sound sources
          • not as pixels of a display to render sound sources (=> spat)
      • Compose speaker setup
        • possibility to compose the speaker setup
        • small differences, big effects, explore this space
        • traditional thinking patterns makes it difficult to compose a setup
        • created random setups, explore them, analyse their qualities, choose one
          • worked with it for the rest of the project
      • In-situ composition
        • engage with performance venue during composition
        • support through StiffNeck
          • ICMC 2014: The Electroacoustic Music Performance Venue in a Box
        • use geometric information of hall and speakers (basis for Zeitraum)
      • Space filling textures
        • working with textures for a long time
        • always the same, never the same, identity and variation
        • address difficulties of spatially distributed textures (breakage)
        • no sweet spot, sounds good anywhere, but also different anywhere
        • audience may move, change their perspective
        • volume solution like with wave field synthesis
        • has to work in any case: if you stand still, if you move, slow and fast
        • hypothesis: grain timing in the same range as propagation delays
      • Among
        • CoS case study on space filling textures
        • visual setting, light from below
        • 4 background layers, 4 foreground layers, one spat solo (DBAP)
        • background: slowly shifting overlapping clouds of noise
          • distance based random walk
          • movement related to speaker configuration (inscription)
          • made so that you can listen to it for hours (tested)
          • 4 different noise materials (play them), play background
        • foreground: 4 layers, slicing processes, slowly shifting window
          • fixed rates (in ms): 100, 120, 130, 210
          • speaker chosen at random, repetition control
          • periods in s: 3.3, 3.96, 4.29, 6.93
          • make/play example
          • rule: never the same sound from more than one speaker
            • comb filter effect cause by panning
            • creates hybrid source (radiating from 2 places)
            • works only in a small area
          • rule: repetition only with directed variation
            • need repetition to create texture
            • need variation (slow development) to stay interested
        • spatialised solo
          • use a traditionally spatialise sound object as a contrast (enhances both)
          • there must be a reason for a sound to move
          • movement must also be reflected in other qualities of sound than location
          • used physical model to create movement
          • movement informs synthesis and spatialisation
          • play excerpt (foregrounds + solo)
        • reconstruction of a discovery
          • occlusion with low speaker (walk up to them)
          • idea to add reverb, mixed 33 channels as reverb input => strange rattle
          • temporal dispersion created a variation I was not aware of
          • use Zeitraum diagram to explain (increase rate)
          • last step was done when preparing for this talk!
            • created a family of complicated situation for other reasons (repetition control)
            • deviation from regularity is the difference of successive deviations
            • propagation delays are randomised, variation maximised (not intended)
            • (31 * 31 - 31) / 2 = 465
        • how to share this finding
          • explain it, as I just did
          • create a piece that highlights this aspect => Zeitraum
          • finding can be inferred form the experience of the artwork
          • art work that makes a claim that this is important
        • fundamental condition of electroacoustic music practice
          • find better formulation
        • formed the claim Zeitraum is invested with
      • Artistic Research
        • to know if what I think I am doing is actually what I am doing
        • artistic research is research based on artistic practice
        • exploring the world through artistic practice
        • SAR, Unconditional Love
        • research because it aims at communicating findings
        • scrutinising one’s own artistic practice
        • when preparing for sharing, insights happens
        • moment of critique, methodological practice of doubt
        • ideal (Erkenntnis durch ästhetische Erfahrung)
          • finding or insight through aesthetic experience
          • artwork has to have special qualities of allowing for a claim to appear in the experience of it
          • priming the experience is ok
          • has to work aesthetically independently of it working epistemically
        • values
          • consider two types of values objects may have: aesthetic and epistemic
          • anything may have aesthetic and/or epistemic value, if attributed
          • research reports are made to have epistemic value
            • may have aesthetic value, e.g. formula e=mc2
          • artworks are made to have aesthetic values and may have epistemic value
          • epistemic works are made to have aesthetic and epistemic value
            • must be able to support an epistemic claim
            • epistemic claim is support through aesthetic experience
            • must be able to function as artworks independently
            • strength lies in insight through experience, engagement with the artwork
            • experience of an epistemic work can be primed in any suitable way
            • it is not important that the claim becomes apparent through aesthetic experience
            • but that the claim is supported by aesthetic experience, resists the critique of experience
            • the claim has typically been produced in a research process
            • claim of Zeitraum: speed of sound is slow enough to
      • Zeitraum
        • make a piece only about temporal dispersion
        • Zeitraum consitst of one layer of Among
          • optimised to work best in the Ligeti hall
          • with its very acoustics and the speaker configuration chosen
          • regular beat, slower (6 Hz - maximum effect with hall dimensions)
          • percussive noise burst (resembles hit on snare drum)
          • short decay, allow for conversations (social space)
          • almost no variation in sound (little needed)
          • one of the most minimalist pieces I have ever made
        • compositional approach
          • create a location without dispersion, pattern can be heard regularly
          • scientific gesture of normalisation (time alignment)
          • mark position with light spot on the floor
        • play auralisations
        • play video
        • summary
          • not only an aesthetic and but also an epistemic claim
          • brings forth a non-discursive proposition: there is an issue
          • knowledge is shared through aesthetic experience
          • aesthetic experience creates a memorable impression
          • time space navigable through locomotion
          • social space stimulating verbal communication
          • experience of interactivity with a non-interactive system
          • acoustic, compositional, and listening space coincide
        • other forms of sharing: Zeitraum as interactive diagram
        • develop the idea of the piece further
        • can be said to have been constructed through the circumstances
          • Ligeti hall, movable speakers
          • idea of GR
          • loudspeaker test sequences
          • space filling textures
          • reconstruct how this formulation has been found
          • a formulation is always a formulation of something, so it is not identical with this something, but without the formulation the something would probably not exist, nor would the formulation - what is this???
      • Rests
        • we can hear sound from all directions, but we usually have only a few speakers around us
        • my use of standard spatialisation techniques (stereophony, binaural, wakefield synthesis)
        • Misc
          • artistic research
          • space is a device
          • sweet spot
          • window
          • display, render, camera
          • fixed media
          • intro
            • ten years ago spoke about sound and space in multimedia installations
            • used these quotes
            • time is a device the prevent everything from happening at one (attributed to Henri Bergson)
            • space is a device that prevents everything from happening in Cambridge
            • in the meantime movement because an issue, of the performing and the listening body, the audience performing the listening (enactive perception)
            • SS > factoids > quotations
            • the world looks different from different positions, this is why movement is important, this is my topic today
            • interactivity as movement in some kind of space, e.g. in real space!
          • will talk about
            • how we think sound and space (spatialisation/choreography)
            • artistic research and how it transformed my practice as a sound artist
            • Zeitraum, a result of CoS
          • start out with a shared experience, first experiment in the lab we are setting up here
            • play to you a piece I did together with Trond Lossius
            • end of August last year Trond and I would talk for 5 days about our practices
            • conversation another pace
          • topics
            • place, becoming one with the place through listening
            • strong memory, also because sharing the experience
            • slowness of experience, as opposed to writing
            • inside/outside, the outside doesn’t stop, infinity of open space, fade out
          • things to get at
            • LISTEN, Raumfaltung, choreographing the audience?
            • artistic research
              • context to work in
                • AR creates a community of peers to exchange ideas with
            • CoS
              • aesthetic lab, Ligeti hall, video of speakers
            • spatialisation
            • space filling texture as paradigm, creates a place, become one with place
            • Among
            • Zeitraum
            • formulations
            • Zeitraum Diagram
        • Intro
          • thank Larry and Diane to have invited me again
            • have been here 10 years ago
            • I remember it as the most enjoyable talk I have given ever
            • because of the very special and inspiring meeting the SoS is
          • got to know Larry? SoS, LISTEN?
          • worked together in the LISTEN project
            • briefly show Raumfaltung?
            • last time talked about sound and space in multimedia installations
            • used 5 pieces to illustrate how I use sound and space in my work
            • today it will only be three, on of which can actually be performed in this setting
            • last time used images and video to introduce you to pieces
            • today attempt to create a laboratory situation here
        • A walk in the woods on a Sunday morning
          • capture the thinking behind an artistic practice: have a conversation about it
          • had many conversations with Trond before
          • context for me to formulate things I cannot formulate in other situations
          • in order to understand certain things about the way I work, I need this resonance from a fellow artist
          • as this was a mutual experience and I was experimenting with different formats of capturing the results of research processes, we teamed up and met for 5 days in Stockholm, had conversations in different situations and recorded them (in my garden, in my office, at the see, in the woods - trying to get a mix of spaces and see, what the spaces provoke us to speak about
          • both composers and sound artists, Trond had done many field recordings recently, sound and space and especially sound and place are very important topics for him
          • want to share this piece with you
          • topics raised: role of the microphone, special state of listening, understanding the world through listening, place making, becoming one with place through listening, how to experience things in time, quality of the outside, infinity of the outside, it is just an image that is put up in front of view, technical gesture fading it out, explain what the StiffNeck is, staged but unscripted conversation, space vs. place, spat comes with baggage, to render something you need to know what it is, loosing control, as artist and audience, Eno quote, boats
          • This was “A walk in the woods on a Sunday morning” by Trond Lossius and me, having a conversation about how our practices as sound artists relate.
          • Wanted to share this with you because it is about the only work I can perform in a situation like the one we are in here, over such a loudspeaker setup. Most of my other works are installations, which are usually extremely site-specific, especially from an acoustic point of view.

Transpositions 2

Notes on antrag

  • finances. missing percentage on pirro

  • For Theo’s fee, in the comments it currently says: "A further 15000 will be acquired in Norway to create those 20% postdoc salary.” I think there has to be a mention of this somewhere since otherwise reviewers might question the 20%. How to deal with this?

    yes, you need to comment this in the text section above the table. "Prof. Theodor Barth will commit 20% of his time to the project: his salary will be budgeted in this project (75%): the remaining 25% (15000 Euro) will be acquired in Norway…" or something. Maybe indicate which fund? (e.g. Norwegian FWF)

  • I realise that the application does not reference the ‘expanded field’ promised in the project subtitle. Should I drop the subtitle? Do I need to discuss and reference it?

    Yes, I think you do need to discuss if you use it. I personally like the "expanded field". I do think you need to say what you mean by expended field: that can be also very short, no need for big discussions. For instance in the introduction, page 4 point 14:

    "Other than Transpositions, however, it will engage with any generative process and not just those related to the use of data…"

    Could be:

    "Other than Transpositions, however, it will engage with the expanded field of any generative process and not just those related to the use of data …"

Artificial Life – Dr. David Pirro, project team

A study into the aesthetic dimensions which are implied in the scientific modelling of biological life, intelligence, evolution and ecological complexity with computational means.

computational

Artificial Life laboratory http://zool33.uni-graz.at/artlife/

Computation and Complexity – Dr. David Pirro, project team

An inquiry into the aesthetico-epistemic operators at work in the research about the essential interplay of computation and complexity in contemporary theoretical computer sciences.

Institute of Theoretical Computer Science, Technical University Graz https://www.tugraz.at/institutes/igi/home/

Contribution

David Pirrò contribution stems from his capacity to bridge technical-scientific and artistic practices. Pirrò is a sound artist and researcher graduated in both Theoretical Physics and Computer Music: he currently works at the Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics (IEM) in Graz. In his work the computational modelling of dynamical systems is the central intersection field between the technological-scientific and the aesthetic perspectives: a position where those perspectives mix, diffract and interact. During the past years he has developed a practice of reading the scientific study of the complex systems through an aesthetic lens and conversely probe artistic practice with the scientific understanding of complexity and emergence. In particular, he has was part of the previous Transposition project, where he has significantly contributed to the development of the dynamical systems perspective. More recently, as principal investigator in the FWF PEEK Project "Algorithms That Matter" (2017–2020, PEEK AR 403-GBL) he has been researching the complexity of interactions between the artistic practice sound art and the computational processes involved in its production.

Complexity

Complexity has risen in the past years one of the most important research field spanning across multiple scientific fields, as the appearance of multiple research organisations proves e.g. the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (https://www.csh.ac.at) (founded 2015) to name one. Yet the term Complexity still seems to escape a clear scientific definition: generally, the concept is been conveyed through example and is therefore characterised differently in each field. A very loose description that may fit in most cases could be the study of the phenomena arising from a set of mutually interacting objects.

When tracing back the origins what is nowadays called complexity science, one may see how it is deeply rooted in the work of specifically one mathematician and philosopher: Henri Poincaré. In particular, in his study of the well-known "three-body problem" (cite), he formulated the existence of a "deterministic unpredictability" lying at the heart of systems of interacting objects. With deterministic unpredictability he expressed that systems may be clearly stated, formulated in simple mathematical terms even analysed in its parts and yet be non solvable, non predictable: they cannot be fully represented.

What is central is that deterministic unpredictability is not the effect of some kind of "ignorance" or missing comprehension of the observer, but an incompressible quality of the world: it is essential to those systems and cannot be eliminated by scientific or technological advance, never. At least, not with the thought models we have. Deterministic unpredictability is a disturbing oxymoron, a crucial concept that would shake the grounds of any positivistic stance; a concept which gave birth to chaos theory and the study of dynamical systems, that have been from then on (and will be) the hardest and central in all science. It is a hard problem because it initiates a "cut" through concepts which still nowadays are considered intimately tied: determination is not equal to prediction, formulation is not equal representation, analysis is not equal to comprehension etc. A cut that has been deepened by the Quantum Mechanics first and then the advent non-linear dynamics after, i.e. the study of systems like the weather or assemblages of neurons. A cut that requires a change of the thought models with which we encounter the world.

Non-linear dynamics has definitely tied the study of complex systems to computation. Many (more or less simultaneous) departure points may be found for non-linear dynamics, but one work which best exemplifies the connection with computation is the so-called "Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou" experiment (cite). In this experiment, done 1953 using one of the first digital computers at the Los Alamos Laboratories, a simple (meaning fomrulated in simple mathematical terms) "string" modelled by a set of masses interacting with each other through a slightly non-linear force was simulated.

This experiment is important for a few reasons. First, it was the first "computational experiment" that is the first case in which an experiment was performed on a computer: it is not a simple simulation, but a computational process that was set in motion in order to produce insights on clear scientific questions. One may well say that this experiment inaugurated what is nowadays known as the "third way" of doing (physical) research besides the theoretical and the experimental.

The second reasons lies in the motivation of the authors. That system of masses was known to exhibit all the qualities Poincaré formulated 60 years before. That system can be clearly formulated, but cannot be solved: we don't have the mathematical tools to formulate a "solution", that is a form that represents the behaviour of the system for all times. But, it can be simulated. The idea of the scientists was to operate a "reduction" and an "immersion": they reduced their envisioned result to an observation of the system's behaviour given a chosen particular starting point and for a chosen span of time. And they devised an algorithm that, given the system's state, would compute the state at the time "immediately" after. That is, they understood that the only possibility they had to look into that complex system was to perform it, in some way "be" with it and refrain to global or general statements.

What Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou found in performing the experiment was crucial for non-linear dynamicas, chaos theory and the study of complexity. But, more than the particular results, it is their method, the perspective they adopted that so greatly influenced computational and complexity sciences.

The upswing complexity sciences have received in the past years is definitely related to the renewed interest in the topics of artificial intelligence, machine learning and data science. In all these fields, neural networks, classical examples of non-linear dynamical systems, the simulation of their behaviours, is a central topic and a tool. But, given the strong technological narratives flowing in and under complexity science, those of analysis, extraction of information, and social, political, ecological control, one may ask: How do these relate to the aesthetico-epistemic dimensions of Poincarè's and Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou which are its origins? Complexity science might from this perspective seen as itself a entangled plexus of diverse aesthetico-epistemic operators in tension.

H. Poincaré, Sur le problème des trois corps et les ´equations de la dynamique, Acta Mathematica 13, 1890, p. 1-270.

E. Fermi, J. Pasta, S. Ulam and M. Tsingou, Studies of nonlinear problems I. Los Alamos preprint LA-1940 (7 November 1955)

Validate