Simultaneity and Spatiality

{hhr, 200515}

While working out the movement for the Simularr project, we came to think of the complementarity between simultaneity and spatiality; that none of them can go without the other, but they are also incommensurable or require different descriptive levels.

When beginning with spatiality, one can distinguish at least three types of spaces, which one might call 1. 'thought space' (in German: Denkraum, there is no canonical English term; sometimes 'mental space', 'cognitive space' or 'conceptual space' is used, but the former two sound two psychological to me, whereas the latter is often used much more open than locating it more closely with an individual), 2. 'aesthetic space' (the space or spaces that are constructed through our artistic doing, experientially sensually in sound and image, or also artistically-conceptually-compositionally), 3. 'architectural space' (or physical space).

These modes of spatiality are not independent (that's a hypothesis, probably comprehensible), but they are in contact and exchange with each other. Now the interesting thing that happens in this project is that at least the thought spaces and aesthetic spaces are multiple, because each of us has their own, and these "eight spaces" come together in our simultaneous arrival. The architectural space as the support structure in which our work will be located, is more or less given (if of course interpreted and translated differently); also this space here, our online workspace, is a common space.

Then I posit that there is a movement in the ordering of the spaces, "nesting" them differently such that sometimes the thought spaces, sometimes the architectural space / workspace "work" towards an alignment between the four of us, they allow us to arrive at a common site. Not "by themselves" but through the exchanges we are doing here, through our moments of contact and sharing of ideas, commentary etc. In what we can see so far here on the RC, that are traces of our process, I imagine them as kind of condensations on the surfaces that the continguity between our thought spaces and the boundaries of our workspace and exhibition space give us.

An interesting question is about the conjunction of the aesthetic space, how the four aesthetic layers will come together in the exhibition, how do they form then an overall space?

meta: true
artwork: ThroughSegments
project: AlgorithmicSegments

keywords: [simultaneity, spatiality]

{poz, 200519}

When working on  my segment I was also thinking  about the question of
space, and maybe some aspects that  might (somehow) be related to your
notes here.   Even if  this has  only to do  with my  individual space
(segment) I'll try to sum up  some of those thoughts. then I'll

address your questions concerning the group at the end.

originally, when I  began sketching sounds for my  segment, I departed
from the recordings David made in  the staircase in December, from the
physical  or architectural  space, so  to  speak.  I  also focused  on
working with a reverberator, that is a model that is obviously related
to the idea of space. then I was  tweaking it a bit, trying to make it
behave slightly different than a plain reverb.  I tried for example to
sustain  specific   resonances  and   I  started  working   with  self
oscillating  tones emerging  from the  FDN. In  doing this  I had  the
feeling I was adding an /algorithmic space/ on top of, or parallel to,
the actual space  contained in the sound  recordings.  Initially these
two  spaces had  a quite  specific relationship,  the reverb  was much
dependent on what  was happening in the actual space  (no sound events
in the  staircase, no  sound events  in the reverb).   The more  I was
drifting away from the  model of the plain reverb, the  more I had the
feeling these two spaces were also  distancing from each other.  I got
to a point where it was no more clear to me whether their relationship
had some effect,  or importance, any longer. So i  tried to remove the
sound recording from  the FDN, and indeed that didn't  affect much its
behaviour.   The  algotihmic space  had  grown  to  a point  where  it
inverted the  original relationship  (hierarchy?) between the  two. At
the  same time,  since it  was  developed on  the basis  of the  sound
recordings, I can hear traces or  shadows of this 'other space' in the
plain algorithmic space.  But maybe is just my biased impression. What
i find interesting is that this space came to be quite decoupled from,
but at  the same  time it  maintains a relation  to, the  sound events
happening in  the staircase.   Now the algorithmic  space has  its own
temporality, so to speak.  it can  be thought as an independent space,
that  nevertheless maintains  a  potential 'opening'  to the  physical
space contained in the recordings.

indeed when  thinking about how  to relate  these two spaces,  I found
really   interesting   your   suggestion  of   alternating   different
relationships over time. I might  have several temporal segments, with
different  balances   between  the  actual  acoustic   space  and  the
algorithmic space, having bridges that  can open or close between them

I also agree that this space on the RC helps in sharing and exchanging
ideas, also aligning sometimes, nevertheless my feeling is that we are
moving more inside  a shared 'conceptual space' at the  moment, to use
your  term.   The 'aesthetic  space'  is  still quite  individual  and
segmented, that I  find also nice.  I enjoy this  space quite much for
sharing sketches  and experiments.  but the  (virtual) segmentation we
set up makes it hard somehow to think in what terms a common aesthetic
space  will come  together.  I  think the  'architectural space',  the
staircase, will be  a good catalyser in this sense,  to perform also a
simoultaneous (aesthetic)  arrival.  And  probably the  approaching of
the opening will also be ;)

Maybe something  we could try  again now  is to go  back to a  sort of
'observation mode' in which we  visit the other individual spaces here
on  the  RC, looking  for  relationships  with  others and  trying  to
incorporate some aspects  that might integrate with what  we are doing
in our single  segments.  That might be a start in 'intersecting' our
aesthetic spaces (maybe).

{jyk, 200525}

I am the only one who hasn't seen the actual staircase. For me I had to rely on the images and pictures provided. Accordingly the imagination does not include the other surroundings (the fact that it is in a museum) but only the staircase. Not knowing what is outside of the door to the staircase gives me a feeling of a completely independent space where only the staircase purely exists, divided by 4 and I am -largely- in charge of one of them.  

Such a 'closed' space in my imagination gives me an impression of constructing my own 'room' yet that is not strongly separable from the other ones, but it 'could' have its own role (like an open living room in a house) that it can only be fully functioning, or the function could be discovered when approached. This could be similar to what Poz mentioned about 'The 'aesthetic' space is still quite individual.' When an audience is approaching and has a willingness to see what this room is all about. What would be then the house (The whole works by all 4 of us) about?

The reason for which the room is not separable from the others is due to the simultaneous process that made possible to construct the house of which rooms are not compeletly independant. The main contribution to it could have come by the questions that we asked, and how we formed the questions, and found each other's interest and could go further with them. The process has become a 'bond' to the story(asthetics) of the house. Basically this description is not so different from Hanns' and Poz's ones.
I could twist some words from Hanns' :mentioning 'they -the architectural space/workspace- allow us to arrive at a common site' which could be :they allow us to depart from the common point. Accordingly I don't think that each of us has quite a different asthetic, but the opposite. We have a number of common factors in the starting point, process and the subject. The individual process allowed us to create own function of the room, yet we kept in mind that we build a house that talks about (the arrival), 'the space,' and its influence is all over the rooms, and perhaps has given us common asthetic points.

The conjunction could also be quite a conceptual one between the divisions: as each staircase exists and we four of us are different individuals. However the connection is as well made by those: the physical construction that does not have a strong division other than the  need of walking towards the next staircase, but there some sort of leftover-from-the-last and -the-anticipation-to-the-next may very well be coexisting in between. This small 'break' -but not really, I would rather like to call it as a 'bridge'- could be the core element to creating a musical form.