This paper outlines a current lack of consideration for the environmental context of Evolutionary Algorithms used for the generation of music. We attempt to readdress this balance by outlining the benefits of developing strong coupling strategies between agent and en- vironment. It goes on to discuss the relationship between artistic process and the viewer and suggests a placement of the viewer and agent in a shared environmental context to facilitate understanding of the artistic process and a feeling of participation in the work. The paper then goes on to outline the installation ‘Excuse Me and how it attempts to achieve a level of Sonic Ecology through the use of a shared environmental context

C. Bishop

D. Keil

F. Almeida e Costa

F.J. Varela

J.,J. Gibson

M. Duchamp

M. Rozemond

P.M. Todd

English

Crossref

Environments for Sonic Ecologies

Davis, Thomas

Rebelo, P.

Bournemouth University Research Online

Environments for Sonic EcologiesAbstract.  This paper outlines a current lack of consideration of theenvironmental context of Evolutionary Algorithms used for the generation ofmusic. This paper attempts to readdress this balance by outlining the benefits ofdeveloping strong coupling strategies between agent and environment. It goeson to discuss the relationship between artistic process and the viewer andsuggests a placement of the viewer and agent in a shared environmental contextto facilitate understanding of the artistic process and a feeling of participation inthe work. The paper then goes on to outline the installation ‘Excuse Me’ andhow it attempts to achieve a level of Sonic Ecology through the use of a sharedenvironmental context.Keywords: Evolutionary Music, Ecology, Environment, Installation, Agent,Artwork.1   IntroductionWithin the field of Artificial Intelligence there has been a relatively recentembracement of Ecological Theory [1], with most research now centering on theimportance of an agent's embodiment within an environment and the consequentialcontribution to the growth and development of a situated definition of cognition. Thisecological approach moves away from the classical idea of a dualism of mind andbody [18] towards a philosophy where the interaction between the agent and itsenvironment constitutes a reciprocal relationship which is defined by the agents’physical embodiment within an environment and its ecological relationship to it.Despite a long tradition of site specific composition in music, with examples as farback as the Baroque (Gabrielli, Bach [21]); developments of concepts of space andsituatedness in composition (Mozart, Serenade in D for 4 Orchestras (K286 1777),Stockhausen, Gruppen for 3 Orchestras 1955,[21]); the later obsession with multi-channel speaker transmission by electroacoustic composers [19] and the embracementof a concept of the environment by groups such as 'The World Soundscape Project',founded by Schafer [20] and publications such as Truax's 'Acoustic Ecology' [23], itis only recently that theorists and artists such as Whitelaw [25] and McCormack[15][14] have started calling for a similar level of environmental consideration insystems for the generation of sound/music that utilise models from the field ofArtificial Intelligence or more specifically Evolutionary Computation.2   The Un(der)-modeled EnvironmentAs John McCormack stated in his 2006 article 'New Challenges for EvolutionaryMusic and Art',  ‘[o]ne common oversight made by those trying to evolve creativesystems is proper consideration of environment'  [15].  Systems taken from the fieldof Evolutionary Computation applied to the generation of music tend to themselves beborrowed from models inspired by systems found in nature. These models especiallythose based on 'non-reductionist' techniques tend to consist of varied numbers ofagents existing within a shared virtual environment. Programmers determine not onlythe nature and strength of the interactions between the individual agents but also thequantity and form of any environmental reciprocity. The strength of environmentalcoupling can vary from weak to strong but has a tendency to fall into the formercategory, possibly due to computational limitations and the corresponding desire tokeep everything as simple as possible. Whitelaw turns to emergent swarms as anexample of how agents can be modeled so removed from their environment; althoughthey interact with each other within the programmed space, this space is static,indifferent to the plight of its occupants. An agent in a swarm is described as a 'clonein a crowd, unchanging, no traction of the space it inhabits, existing in an ongoingperpetual present' [25]. Some recent environmental models [6][7][22] have includedenvironmental factors such as food sources, disease and even evolving critics and thisdeeper relationship between environment and agent seems to give an 'aesthetic andgenerative payoff' [25]. Yet a truly reciprocal relationship between agent andenvironment seems to be lacking. More thought therefore needs to be given to theprocess of embodiment of the agents within their environment and the level ofenvironmental coupling that is afforded to them. How are their interactions to bedesigned and handled? For a deeper relationship between agent and environment, onein which there is a level of mutual exchange between the two; where environmentalconstraints can lead to unexpected outcomes; account for dynamic fitness landscapesand for the development of unforeseen or unexpected niches, can generate a climatefor the generation of a society based on interaction rich in complexity and creativity.3  Embodiment3.1 The Embodied Agent'The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides orfurnishes either for good or ill' [9].Gibson postulates that our relationship with the environment is governed by ourperception of it, which in turn is dependent on our bodily interactions within it.Different encounters in different environmental situations afford different qualities todifferent beings through interaction with their different bodies. Thus the way in whichwe perceive our environmental context is directly linked to our embodiment within it.Thus embodied perception of our environment is not just a case of situatedexperience, but rather an example of the deeper relation your body has on theunderstanding of the environment. For example, water for a pond skater affords asupportive surface where as for a human, due to its heavier body mass, it does not.Interpretation of the environment is thus directly linked to an agent’s embodimentwithin it, not just its level of embodiment physically, but what these sensedperceptions afford within its environmental context. Not only are agents situated in adynamic environment, but also the way they perceive this environment is dependenton a combination of their embodiment within it and their bodily interpretation of it.The environment can thus be considered as a dynamic landscape within the system,possibly even as a dynamic agent in its own right. Environmental constraintsthemselves can be considered as an evolving fitness landscape with which the agentsinteract, thus allowing for a co-evolution of agent and environment [16] describing acomplex relationship that never reaches a stasis.3.2 The Embodied ViewerA description of a viewer’s relationship with a generative artwork, can be acontroversial one.  There is one stance that suggests that the viewer’s appreciation ofthe work comes about through an understanding of the beauty of the generativealgorithm [4].  Other theories are that Evolutionary Art holds the attention of theviewer through comparability with models from nature, [10] for others it is anemergence of apparently creative output from a computer that draws them in. Eitherway there is either a retinal [8]/sensory [12] or rational/cognitive [10] perception ofbeauty. Thus in both cases there is a strong relationship with how the viewerperceives the work (retinal), or how much of the process they perceive (cognitive) andwhat they get out of the work. Rather than considering the viewer as a voyeur, outsideof the artistic process, listening in, removed from what is happening, looking downupon a virtual world as a kind of god like creature, omnipresent but impotent,exercising the notion of aura, described by Walter Benjamin as essential for theperception or art [3] What if instead of this the viewer is embodied within the sameenvironmental constraints and space as the agents? In this scenario, due to a sharedlocality of stimuli an understanding of the system space through sensual explorationbecomes attainable. Rather than advocating a deeper level of immersion of the voyeurinto the virtual world one could argue that this sharing of system-space is bestachieved by introducing the agents into the same world as the perceiver i.e. the 'real'world. This facilitates a greater immersion in the piece with higher levels ofcommunicability between viewer and agents, viewer and process and hopefully‘viewer’ and music. The viewer can now be considered a participant in the system-space of the installation, another agent in the system. There is no need for a model avirtual environment as the real world is an environment in its own right with moreinherent richness that can be found in any simulation. This sharing of environmentalcontext not only facilitates a direct communication between agent and participant butalso encourages an ecology of communication to develop where an evolution of agentand environment includes the participant as an active member of society.4 EnactionThe enactive [24][17] viewpoint builds on Gibson's ideas of 'direct perception' bydoing away with the need for a Cartesian inner world model or representation. Ratherthan the more traditional perception - computation - action model there is now a moredirect relationship between perception and action, with action informing theperception, which guides action, which informs the perception etc. [5]This idea of a lack of an ‘inner world view’ or ‘representation’ such that allcomputation is a result of a direct relationship between action and perception has acommonality with the idea of agents and participants coexisting in real space. In bothsituations there is a move away from complex representations in simulated space toall interaction and perceptual representation happening in the real lived environment.This facilitates a shared mode of perception between agent and participant and affordsthe participant an enactive approach to the perception of the generative process; allinteraction is no longer modeled but happens through embodiment in a sharedenvironment. The environment becomes the main catalyst for driving communicationand creativity, each agent contributing to and taking from it like a shared culturalexperience.5 ‘Excuse Me’: A Vehicle for Enactive ExplorationInstallation is a medium that lends itself to an investigation of the viewer as an activeparticipant within a shared system-space, another agent in the algorithm. There isalready a concept in the medium of installation that the viewer is more than a voyeur,abstracted from the work. ‘The term ‘looking’ is superceded in installation by theconcept of ‘spectating’, which assumes a higher involvement by the audience’ [2].The installation 'Excuse Me' (2006), an interactive sound installation developed by theauthor, attempts to set up a situation in which the notion of spectating in installation issuperseded by this notion of participation in the piece, to such an extent that thespectator is not only interacting with the piece but becomes another agent in theartwork, an active participant in the creative process.‘Excuse me’ tries to create the conditions for a deeper relationship between agent,participant and environment to develop. One in which there is a level of mutualexchange between the agents (including the participant) and environment; whereenvironmental constraints can lead to unexpected outcomes; can account for dynamicfitness landscapes and for unforeseen niches to develop. For it is this relationship,formed on deeper embodiment of agents within their surroundings, with which wehope to generate a climate for richer results of complexity and creativity.In ‘Excuse me’, the agents are placed in the same environment as the participants;they can communicate with this environment through listening and speaking devices,microphones and speakers. Allowing the participant and agents to coexist in the sameenvironment and sonic ecology. Participants can have a direct affect on the ecology ofthe piece through sonic and physical interaction through an individual agent or withthe environment as a whole.5.1 Installation DesignEach agent consists of a speaker and microphone element. The speaker element isconstructed out of an audio transducer attached to the body of a violin; themicrophone is a homemade electret with attached preamp. These microphones areplaced somewhere on the body of the violin. There are six agents situated in theinstallation space, suspended from the ceiling, six being the minimum numberconsidered by the author to be needed to form a society of sonic interaction.  They arespaced apart with room for people to move amongst them and interact with them asindividuals. The six agents listen to their environment and analyse the audio input totheir microphone using Tristan Jefran's Max/MSP object, analyzer~ [11]. They thentry to recreate their incoming aural stimuli through a matching process of this analysisof this audio to their own internal database of sounds. The microphone and speakerdevice of each agent is connected to a computer running Max/MSP [13]. After theagent has played back its 'best fit' sound to the environment it adds the analysis of theincoming sound to its internal database.This re-sharing of an agent’s interpretation of the sound back into the environmentallows for a culture of communication to develop, where the agents build up a libraryof shared sonic experiences. This kind of mimetic interaction is easy for theparticipant to appreciate and partake in. The algorithmic process is somewhattransparent and is only affected externally by environmental factors that are commonto both agents and participant.5.2 Subversion of IntentionA subversion of the mimetic intention of the agents is employed as a catalyst to thedevelopment of the sonic output. The system of analysis and recreation employed bythe agents does not always give predictable results. For example the pitch-detectingalgorithm is best suited to working in non-noisy, clean environments on monophonicsounds. Asking it to detect pitch of sound from a noisy microphone plugged into theenvironment, not only detecting one agent’s polyphonic output but an unpredictablecomplex output from up to five other agents at once, plus possibly other extraneousenvironmental sounds is pushing the software far beyond its intended limits. What dothese machines make of the noisy surroundings they have been placed in, how willthey interpret these situations where they are experiencing information overload? Thisadded complexity is a benefit from the fact that the communication of these agentsand their perceptual reconnaissance is all carried out in a real unpredictableenvironment, which leads to an evolution of un-predictable outcomes that could inturn be labeled creative.Allowing the viewer to walk amongst these agents, listening to their individual outputor listening to the society as a whole, whilst interacting on many different levels helpsthem to understand the internal (now external) algorithmic process. The agents pickup their environmental noise and try to recreate it; bits of speech and other sounds arebroken up and reinterpreted, passed from one agent to another. Creating an evolvingshared language of communication, a sonic ecology, an emergent texture of sound.6 ConclusionThrough notions such as embodiment and enaction one can revisit design strategiesfor algorithms that pertain to operate in a creative environment. We’ve argued that it’sworth exploring strategies in which emergent and evolutionary algorithms inhabit anenvironment that is shared by a viewer/participant. We have questioned the role of thealgorithm as model for delivering creative solutions directly and have proposed thatboth the algorithm and the viewer need to be situated and embodied in a sharedenvironment. As exemplified in the installation “Excuse Me”, there is no attempt atcreating a reductionist model of the environment context but rather a placing of thealgorithm and the viewer within the full complexity of the environment as a way ofpromoting unexpected complexities and interactions.References1. Almeida e Costa,F. & Rocha, L.M.: Embodied and Situated Cognition.  Artificial Life.Vol 11 (1,2) MIT Press.  pp 5 -11. (2005)2. Benjamin,A (ed.): Installation art. Art & design profile ;no. 30. Art & design ;vol.8,no.5/6. London : Academy Group, (1993)3. Benjamin, W.:The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1935. Zeitschriftf ü r  S o z i a l f o r s c h u n g  ( o r i g i n a l l y ) .www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm Accessed online(30 October 2006)4. Borevitz,B.: Super-Abstract: software art and a redefinition of abstraction.  read_meSoftware Art and Cultures Edition, Goriunova,O & Shugin,A [eds] Center for DigitalAEs te t ik - fo rskn ing ,  2 - -4  pp  310-311 .  Also  ava i lab le  on l inehttp://runme.org/project/+super-abstract/  accessed 29/10/065. Clark, A. :From Fish to Fantasy: Reflections on an Embodied Cognitive Science. Ashortened and amended version appears as "An Embodied Cognitive Science?" Trends InCogni t ive  Sc iences  3 :9 :1999 pp  345-351.  1999 a lso  onl inehttp://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/staff/clark/publications.html accessed 29/10/066. Dorin, A.: Beyond  Morphogenesis: enhancing synthetic trees through death, decay andthe Weasel  Test, in Third  Iteration: Proceedings of the Third International Conference onGenerative  Systems in the Electronic Arts, Innocent, Brown, McCormack, Mcilwain(eds) CEMA,  Melbourne, Dec. (2005), pp119-1287. Dorin, A.: The  Sonic Artificial Ecosystem in Proceedings of the Australasian ComputerMusic Conference (ACMC), Haines (ed.). Adelaide, Australia. (2006).  pp32-378. Duchamp,M. & Cabanne,P.: Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp. Da Capo Press. NewYork.  (1987)9. Gibson, J,J.: The Ecological approach to visual perception. LEA, London. (1986).10. Jaschko. S.: Process as aesthetic paradigm: a nonlinear observation of generative art.generator.x conference, 23 - 24.September 2005, Oslo, Atelier Nord, (2005).11. Jehan, T.: analyzer~ for Max/MSP available from http://web.media.mit.edu/~tristan/accessed online on 29/10/0612. Kant, I.: Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. Trans. John T.Goldthwait. University of California Press, 1961, (2003).13. Max/Msp : http://www.cycling74.com accessed online on 29/10/06.14. McCormack, J. : New evolutionary challenges for evolutionary music and art. Lanzi, P.I[ed] ACM  SIGE V Olurion Newsletter Vol 1 (1) April 2006 pp 5- 1. (2006)15. McCormack,J: Open problems in Evolutionary music and art. Proceedings of EvoMusart2005, 30th March to 1st April Lausanne, Switzerland. (2005)16. Moreno , A. & Etxeberria A. :Agency in natural and artificial systems Artificial Life Vol.11 Issue 1-2 pp 161-176. (2005)17. N o e ,  A . :  A r t  a s  E n a c t i o n  a c c e s s e d  o n l i n ehttp://www.interdisciplines.org/artcog/papers/8/version/original  (14/08/06)18. Rozemond, M.: Descartes's Dualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1998).19. Smalley,D.:The Listening Imagination: Listening in the Electroacoustic Era.Contemporary Music Review 13:2. (1997).20. Schafer,R.M.  (1994) The Soundscape: our sonic environment and the tuning of the world.Destiny Books, Vermont. (originally pub 1977). (1994).21. Stevenson,  I . :  A Dialetic of Audible Space available onlinehttp://www.headwize.com/articles/steven_art.htm accessed on 29/10/0622. Todd, P.M. & Werner, G.M.: Frankensteinian Methods for Evolutionary MusicComposition. Griffith, N., and Todd, P.M. (Eds.) (1998).  Musical networks: Paralleldistributed perception and performance.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.199823. Truax B. (2000).: Acoustic Communication, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut 2ndedition. (2000) (1st Edition. Ablex Publishing, 1984)24. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E..: The embodied mind : cognitive science andhuman experience. London ; Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. . (1991).25. Whitelaw,M. (2005)  System Stories and Model worlds: A Critical Approach toGenerative art.. Readme 100 : Temporary Software Art Factory. (Norderstedt: BoD) pgs135-154 Dec (2005).

A Dialetic of Audible Space available online http://www.headwize.com/articles/steven_art.htm accessed on

Acoustic Communication,

Agency in natural and artificial systems

analyzer~ for Max/MSP available from http://web.media.mit.edu/~tristan/ accessed online on

Art as Enaction accessed online http://www.interdisciplines.org/artcog/papers/8/version/original (14/08/06)

Beyond Morphogenesis: enhancing synthetic trees through death, decay and the Weasel Test, in Third Iteration:

Cabanne,P.: Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp.

Descartes's Dualism. Cambridge:

Embodied and Situated Cognition.

Frankensteinian Methods for Evolutionary Music Composition.

From Fish to Fantasy: Reflections on an Embodied Cognitive Science. A shortened and amended version appears as &quot;An Embodied Cognitive Science?&quot; Trends

http://www.cycling74.com accessed online on 29/10/06.

New evolutionary challenges for evolutionary music and art.

Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful

Open problems in Evolutionary music and art.

Process as aesthetic paradigm: a nonlinear observation of generative art.

Smalley,D.:The Listening Imagination: Listening in the Electroacoustic Era. Contemporary Music Review 13:2.

Super-Abstract: software art and a redefinition of abstraction. read_me Software Art and Cultures Edition, Goriunova,O & Shugin,A [eds] Center for Digital AEs te t ik - fo rskn ing

System Stories and Model worlds: A Critical Approach to Generative art..

The Ecological approach to visual perception.

The embodied mind : cognitive science and human experience. London ;

The Sonic Artificial Ecosystem

The Soundscape: our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Destiny Books, Vermont. (originally pub

W.:The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

Environments for sonic ecologies

Environments for sonic ecologies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Bournemouth University Research Online