Barbara
Becker
GMD
St. Augustin, Germany
Gerhard Eckel
IRCAM
Paris, France
Contents
1 Introduction
The initial motivation for our speculations about the relationship between
art and technology was a certain discomfort we felt when being confronted
with art involving technological means of production and presentation. When
we were convinced that these irritations have not been originally intended
by the artists and when we found out that some artists shared our scepticism
we started to ask for the reasons of that situation. At the same time we
were confronted with theories on media art proclaiming a revolutionary synthesis
of art, science, and technology. Motivated by this seemingly contradictory
situation and driven by a sociophilosophical approach we developed our first
hypotheses. While collecting arguments we realized that, evidently, our
questions can be treated very differently depending on the perspective under
which we look at our problems. This led to an investigation of our preconceptions
about the nature and role of art today and made us restate and specify more
precisely our questions. As a result we are at present confronted with even
more questions than at the beginning.
In order not to completely loose ground in a merely theoretical discussion
we aimed at restricting our research for the time being on one domain of
art which we wished to investigate up to a certain level of depth. Personal
preoccupations suggested the field of music rather than the domain of visual
arts, the central focus of the current media art discourse. Also the musical
domain seemed especially attractive because of its relatively old tradition
in dealing with technology. Thus we concentrated on the questions of contemporary
composition and its use of technological tools. We consider the combination
of an analyses on such concrete ground with a sociophilosophical evaluation
of our problem domain a promising strategy in coping with the complexity
inherent to our questions.
The text at hand represents a snapshot of the current state of our investigations.
Thus it is by no means a complete or systematic presentation of findings.
It rather aims at exposing our preliminary hypotheses, methodologies, and
diagnoses to a public discussion.
2 Perspectives and positions
When looking at the relationship of art and technology, both from a practical
point of view and on the level of the corresponding theoretical discourses,
we encounter various perspectives and positions which may serve as basis
for our investigation.
- The sociophilosophical perspective
In the sociophilosophical tradition, art and technology have been interpreted
as diametrically opposed cultural dimensions - both with respect to their
objectives and epistemological interests. While technology has been understood
to aim at generalizing and standardizing, art has been assigned the function
of expressing the individual, contradictory, and fragmentary aspects of
our social environment. From this point of view the current practice of
using new technology in the arts seems to - so the concern of many sceptical
people - endanger the specific objectives of art in favour of technologically
motivated attitudes and effects.
- The position of media theorists
In the current discussions on the impacts of new media in the arts it is
often claimed that the use of computer systems will lead to a new synthesis
of art and technology. In euphemistic interpretations it is anticipated
that such a synthesis may lead to a new way of using technology by reintroducing
the dimensions of freedom and play. This development has been characterized
as the shift from the homo informaticus to the homo ludens.
Another claim of media theorists is that in media art the means have become
the purpose since they refer to themselves and not any longer to external
messages.
- The discourse of aesthetics
The current discourses on aesthetical criteria seem to be characterized
by a profound antagonism. On the one hand, it has been pointed out that
the classical concepts of traditional aesthetics are not any longer adequate
for the description and evaluation of media art. On the other hand, theoreticians
attack the idea to treat media art as a total novum: They argue that
the apparently new characteristics can be found already in older forms of
art and they show that traditional concepts of aesthetics very often have
been misunderstood by media theorists.
- The perspective of artists
The reactions of artists being confronted with new media are very diverse:
The attitudes range from total rejection to euphoric acceptance. But there
seems to be a general agreement on the fact that the technological tools
need further improvement to allow for a more appropriate application in
the artistic field.
- The technological point of view
When we look at our problem domain from the point of view of software engineering
we get the impression that the conception and construction of systems for
artists are mainly guided by technological criteria. The aesthetic implications
of the use of such systems and the concrete needs of artists seem to play
a less important role. Two opposed approaches can be identified and are
presented here in their most extreme forms: Either tools are first made
and artists are then expected to adapt to these and find their way in applying
them in their work; or tools are designed based on concrete needs of artists
and on an analysis of the way they want to use them in their work. The current
practice in the development of artistic tools seems to be situated closer
to the first extreme.
Although we are treating most of the above mentioned points of view in the
context of our research project, we will focus only on the technological
and the sociophilosophical perspective in this contribution. Here we will
demonstrate some of the problems we discerned in the applications of computer
systems in contemporary music.
3 Assumptions
Even if we concentrate only on the technological and the sociophilosophical
points of view, our analysis is based on certain assumptions related also
to the other perspectives mentioned. Since we formulated our diagnoses and
developed our hypotheses based on these underlying assumptions we want to
present them here first. Naturally our position changed since we started
our work and we expect it to change again. It might, for example, turn out
in the course of our future research work that our current assumptions are
too much embedded in a modernist tradition which has to be reflected more
critically.
- We assume that the current use of technology for the most part aims
at generalizing and standardizing most processes in our professional and
social world. Looking at present installations of technology we find them
dominated by motives to control or rule out irregular behavior and to eliminate
so-called irrational attitudes in order to augment productivity. In this
way technology is employed to stabilize general orders.
- We believe that the role of art is to propose an alternative to the
aforementioned attitude, which we call the technological habit. In
our view, art has to distort or disturb generally accepted ways of interpreting
the world by questioning general orders and looking for new ways of perception
and explication. Art should express non-standardized, individual views and
therefore it is opposed to the current habit of using and installing technology.
- We assume that the artist should remain the author of a work. Consequently
we consider computer systems for artists to function as tools rather than
as a medium. The tool perspective presupposes that the artist always has
the possibility to gain insight in the system's behavior. Adopting the tool
perspective allows us to refer to certain criteria which have been formulated
by critical software engineering.
- We consider the artistic process, especially the compositional work,
to be highly individualistic. Thus we assume that it cannot be described
or supported by general formal models as it is required by many technological
tools.
- In contrast to some media theorists we think that new media does not
necessarily bring upon a total change of aesthetical criteria and concepts.
Instead we defend the position that it is suitable and necessary to confront
current results of media art with traditional views and criteria of aesthetics,
even if some concepts will prove to be invalid and thus will have to be
redefined. We presume that art and the modes of its reception are always
embedded in a sociohistorical context and that the above mentioned break
with the tradition is not as pronounced as it appears in current discourses.
4 Some remarks on the situation in contemporary
music
In the light of our current set of assumptions we present now our preliminary
diagnosis of the situation of computer use in contemporary music.
4.1 Why composers use computers
The first step of our analysis consisted in identifying the motivations
of composers to use technological tools. Among the various reasons we present
here the most important ones grouped under two topics: The first being more
concerned with explicit demands of composers and the second one being rather
inspired by the potential offered by technology as such.
4.1.1 Extension of compositional control
Many composers seek to augment the extent of compositional control over
all musically relevant aspects of their work. This may mean better access
to the characteristics of the musical material which the composers wish
to construct as a part of the composition in order to implant on that level
properties exploitable on higher levels of musical organization. Or it may
mean the description of musical structures in form of rules or plans which
are automatically applied by algorithms specified by the composer. Computer
technology can help to augment the radius of influence of the compositional
will by means of control over potentially all perceptually relevant aspects
of the sound material and by the possibility to symbolically represent and
manipulate musical structures. By this means the acoustical limitations
of traditional instruments and the motoric constraints introduced by the
instrumentalists can be overcome. The musical dimension of space becomes
controllable through sound distribution technology and the domain of interpretation
becomes accessible to the composers. More generally speaking, composers
seek for assistance of the compositional process by advanced representation,
modelling, and simulation tools.
4.1.2 Emancipation from traditional compositional
approaches
Many composers see a chance to overcome traditional patterns of musical
conception and realization through the use of technology. The level of formalization
inherent to certain tools provokes an intended abstraction and externalization
of musical thought. The formal manipulation of musical ideas may offer new
sources of inspiration external to the original ideas and thus may allow
to transcend the horizon of imagination. In that sense technology can be
integrated into the realm of what is called écriture in the
French contemporary music discourse. In such a context composers seek for
tools to sketch, explore, and analyse musical structures in order to experiment
with new ideas and test their validity directly through auditive or visual
feedback. More generally speaking, the emancipatoric potential of technology
lies in its capacity to overcome material constraints and to propose new
modes of operation such as interactive exploration of musical material or
formal constructions. Composers may circumvent the implications of the traditional
separation of composition, interpretation, and improvisation by means to
technological tools. Furthermore technology offers the potential to explore
new forms of musical presentation as in sound installations or in combination
with visual art.
4.2 Current state
The second step of our analysis has been an examination of existing tools
and their context of employment in order to estimate to what extent the
aforementioned expectations of composers can be fulfilled today. Although
there is a significant amount of successful applications of computer technology
in contemporary music our general impression is that of a feeble match between
the expectations and the concrete experiences with the tools. Many composers
are unsatisfied with the current state of available tools mainly because
they judge them poorly adapted to their concrete needs and working methods.
The user interfaces of many programs are considered inadequate for artistic
work. Usually programs for different but related tasks are reported to communicate
very badly between each other. It appears that composers with training in
computer programming usually find it much easier to cope with computer technology
but only a minority of them is ready for taking such an effort. The technical
constraints introduced by the tools are estimated to have mostly negative
effects on the creative process: They are said to hinder spontaneity and
impede imagination. Apart from the concrete problems of application some
composers report that many technological tools rather invite to use stereotypical
effects (which their structure proposes) than they permit to realize precise
objectives. Consequently the resulting danger of standardization of artistic
expression and the effort it takes to avoid it are considered unfavorable.
4.3 Hypotheses about the causes
We will now present a set of working hypotheses about the reasons for the
unsatisfactory situation described above. Also some suggestions to improve
this situation will be given. We distinguish between two groups of hypotheses:
The first group concerns the adequateness of the tools and the second one
the adequateness of their usage.
4.3.1 Inadequate tools
- The particularities of the processes of artistic imagination are not
taken into account to a sufficient extent in the design of tools. The existing
tools are not subtle enough to cope with the complexity inherent to the
creative process. And it is the same complexity that impedes an exhaustive
investigation of the creative process - one prerequisite for improving the
conceptions of tools.
- The different tasks composers perform are not sufficiently analysed
(or analyzable) in order to form a coherent basis for the design of software.
In contrast to other domains of software application there are no generalizable
models for the work of composers and this complicates the task analysis.
- The importance of gestual control and the influence and role of the
body in the compositional and interpretational processes are highly underestimated
when designing tools that should serve in these areas.
- Due to the relatively small amount of users of compositional tools
there are almost no evaluation cycles in the software design process. This
essential feedback from users to software developers is the only guarantee
that the characteristics of a tool converge to the requirements of the user.
- Most commercially available tools are produced for commercial music
production and are thus rarely well adapted to the needs of contemporary
music composition. Usually these tools are based on models of musical composition
inapplicable in the context of contemporary music. But also non-commercial
music software frequently suffers from implicit assumptions and too limiting
models which are often unwillingly introduced by the software developers.
- Typical applications in contemporary music productions hit very soon
the limits of the computational resources of current computer hardware.
This being a problem in itself it also effects the software design which
often has to sacrifice issues of user-friendliness or openness for reasons
of computational optimization.
- The problem of integrating in one tool or system of tools features
such as a substantial amount of openness, flexibility, computational efficiency,
and user-friendliness is not uncommon in modern software design. But the
contemporary music community does neither have access to the human resources
nor to the software technology needed to solve these problems.
Solutions for the mentioned problems are not always evident. A closer case-by-case
investigation would be needed to develop criteria of validity in sufficient
detail in order to propose coherent strategies. But there are a couple of
suggestions that seem general enough to be mentioned here:
- The concept of participative evolutionary system design could help
to improve the adequateness of tools because it would involve the users
and make evaluation more efficient.
- The concept of multi-layer user interfaces allows to provide tools
usable by novices and experts and improves the learning.
- A better integration of visualization techniques would greatly enhance
the user friendliness and could put more stress on the explorative nature
of tools.
4.3.2 Inadequate use of tools
- Usually composers are neither trained in using computers in general
nor in using tools specially made for composition. There are only a few
institutions which offer pedagogical programs that allow to acquire the
theoretical knowledge and practical experience necessary to successfully
use these tools.
- Very often composers are badly informed about the technological potential
and the accessibility of interesting systems. This substantial lack of information
prevents composers from gaining a clear impression of how they could employ
technology in their compositional work. But such insight would be the basis
for a successful integration of the potential of technology into the repertoire
of artistic expression.
- Even if composers have the opportunity to use computer systems, this
usually happens under time pressure: The pragmatical constraints of musical
productions with their tight time schedules often prevent composers from
exploring the potential of technology and from employing the tools in an
individualistic creative manner. As a consequence composers are often forced
to abandon their original concepts in favour of bare effects which can be
produced easily. Standardized sounds and uniform musical processes are a
typical result of this situation.
- Every technological tool relies upon certain theories or premises
about the tasks it is intended to support. In order to use a tool successfully
it is important to be aware of these premises but they are often deeply
hidden in the structure of a tools. Hence much time can be lost by composer
in trying to use tools for tasks to which the former are simply not adapted.
- The complexity of technological production environments requires often
the collaboration of composers and assistants with scientific and technological
background. Such collaboration may cause many problems due to the different
objectives, interests, and especially the divergent life styles of artists
and technicians. This prevents very often creative teamwork and hinders
fruitful communication.
5 In lieu of a conclusion
As the character of our presentation suggests, we are currently not in the
position to propose conclusive thoughts concerning our investigations. Instead
we would like to add some more general remarks on the divergence of technological
and artistic objectives.
It appears to us that the difficulties of using computer systems in the
arts can be traced back to a more general problem: the perspective under
which technology has been developed and used ever since in our cultural
tradition. We already pointed out several motives which seem to form a paradigm
for the current use of computer systems: the objectives of regulation, generalization,
standardization, and control. As we also stated above, these objectives,
which often are reflected in individual habits and attitudes of computer
scientists, are strongly opposed to the objectives of artists, who are mainly
interested in expressing particularities, provoking irritations, and in
making out irregularities in order to show new ways of interpreting the
world. Adopting this view, artists have to find ways which permit to employ
computer systems in a different manner than they are used in our current
professional, social, and political surroundings. This includes the assumption
that the above mentioned opposition of technological and artistic objectives
and interests is not inherent to technology as such but is rather a result
of how it has been applied in our cultural tradition.
In order to really explore the potential of technology and to integrate
the new possibilities into the repertoire of artistic expression, composers
would need different working conditions: Much more time and freedom to experiment,
better pedagogical support, and more democratical access to tools would
be a prerequisite for an alternative employment of technology. Similarily,
only a fundamental change of the way software developers understand the
role of technology would change the quality of computer systems useful to
artists.
As certain results in contemporary composition and in media art suggest,
artists succeed to break with the tradition in which technology serves almost
only to stabilize general orders. In that sense an important role may be
attributed to artists today: to help to overcome the technological habit
of mind typical for western culture today.