a note on this process: 

- when I was making questions, it was rather to provoke some ideas from the others than giving my directions/ideas. I see that others do it differently.


- I am not sure if I should try to ask you back while answering. I didn't try to do it.


- I didn't try to answer to all of your questions but the ones that attract me the most. 

{hhr 191216} Hi there. I think this is fine. I actually did the same, I try to inject new ideas in the thoughts of you all. But of course, my selection of questions is based on what I would consider important for the process. In that sense the questions are always hybrid.

About asking back - I had a similar question. I think for now, let's stick to the "simultaneous" work flow, and we can discuss the next proceedings in our phone call later today.

Selecting questions instead of responding to all is fine - this was what I proposed. Although I answered many questions, I also skipped a few.



//Making resonances more clearly audible, bringing them to the surface of perception, could also render the space itself more sensible, its characteristics and its "memory more perceivable."  ↗


{kind: quote}

JYK: Responses Round 1


As an answer/response to the questions above, I've tried to make the first practical step :to make the resonance audible. I have used the resonance of my studio, and I am trying to show the change of the resonant frequency with the wine glass.

I have considered that this can be the very basic source toward a more complicated process, the mother of all, the beginning of any circle, being immersed within the space.

Unlike the video, the microphone will be static. However, considering the locations of the speakers, the output can travel and could enforce/reduce the strength of the audio feedback where the various interferences can be stimulated. The resonance itself, I imagine, will be differentiated by a number of events, e.g., passersby, any other sounds that might occupy the space during the time frame.

As a part of the answer, regarding 'memory' and 'persistence' which can be related to each other, I imagine a circular process. This certain process can be repeated without having a fixed set of duration, but also depends on the external circumstances. As mentioned above, this resonance can take the role of a mother being, the voice of the space that can come back in order to re-establish its journey.

'Persistence' on one hand can be there as a long-term form. On the other hand it can also be interesting to experiment. By forcefully influencing the room resonance or making it compete with itself day by day, the room resonance somehow comes to have a fixed set of duration or some kind of limit, so that it is going/growing toward somewhere else for days. It comes to possess different tones, as if it is slowly growing -not its magnitude, but its inner characters, such as the spectral constructions.


{function: response, keywords: [resonance, memory, persistence, frequency, glass, speakers, sound, feedback, process, form, time scales]}



How does the piece "live" through time; what kind of memory does it have, is there a form of long term state or temporal dependence? Is there an element that survives past a daily restarting of the computers (is there an internal difference between the first and the last day of the exhibition)?  ↗


{kind: quote}

meta: true
author: JYK
artwork: ThroughSegments
project: AlgorithmicSegments

function: proposal
keywords: [questions, responses, proposal, brainstorming]


I immediately think of 'expanding' the space, which I find it quite fascinating. If amplification is the very first step, then the aural perception of the space can only be slightly distorted. Not having any processes that could make the perception of the whole sound not be associated with the sounds of surrounding, the sound of the space itself can slowly melt into/transfer into our ears as abnormal/weird, but it can certainly make the 'edges' vague.


However as I continue forward to make some sense of segmentations as we are faced with the question 'how can we combine two contradictory concepts? With Lucier's ways of transformation in this piece 'I'm sitting in a room.' that he introduced a fixed time domain, which is the length of the speech. By combining with the questions from David, regarding memory, but in a short term, the sound of one's first footsteps on the stairways comes back in the last, but not in the same manner. Segmentations can be applied geometrically, but I have to think deeper in order to imagine how realistic this can be in terms of perception and time

There can also be practical problems, such as the speakers on a particular location in the stairways. The audience might 'notice' where the sounds are coming from, which will interfere with the process of perceiving the entire sound of the space and meaning that the edges will appear. 
Nevertheless, I find this contradictory concept can offer an interesting approach to the process; instead of thinking too much about the concept of 'division,' we can think of an open set in  a topological space.




{function: response, keywords: [space, expansion, amplification, distortion, process, sound, surroundings, edges, speakers, staircase, topology]}




  • How can we create a situation where the environment and our work are perceived as a single entity, rather than as two separate units (background / piece)?
  • What would it mean for our installation to have (acoustic) "edges" that are not always perceptible?
  • Is it possible, and do you find it meaningful, to think about our installation as an entity with no recognisable boundaries? What would that mean in concrete?
  • Amorphous zone: how could this concept be tranlsated into the sound domain?
  • By thinking in this terms - trying to establish the highest integration possible between the work and the space - would you expect to achieve some form of aesthetic result that is different from the sum of the two?  ↗


{kind: quote}