From
Symbol to Semiotic: Computation as Interaction
Michael
Hamman
University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
705
W. Nevada # 4 Urbana, IL 61801
m-hamman@uiuc.edu
Abstract
This
paper examines notions of interaction in order to synthesize an approach to the
use of computers in the arts which respects the fact that, oftentimes, creative
work is facilitated by task environments in which "surprises" can happen.
Typically, interface design concerns the rendering of an interaction such that
it requires minimal cognitive engagement with the task in question, relying
heavily on historically and culturally determined patterns of behavior and
cognition. Ill-structured problems (like music composition), however, benefit
when the interface presents concepts and interactions in ways that are novel.
Computers can be understood as tools for the projection of such an interface
when they are conceived as generators of
semiotic
rather than
symbolic
ordering frameworks.
1.
Introduction
Computer
music is concerned with the design and composition of acoustical and musical
representations made with a computer. In this context, representations
articulate domains of interaction into which one might enter while designing
musical processes and structures. A representation is projected within a
collection of objects and operating principles that define an "interface."
Typically, an interface encapsulates a notion of representation that is highly
denotative: it is based primarily on some cultural norm on the basis of which a
task environment is conceptualized. In such a case, the interface effectively
conceals
the potential underlying complexity of a system by situating the interaction
according to familiar and therefore cognitively redundant patterns of action
and observation.
Within
the context of facilitating task domains (e.g. driving a car, using a word
processor, etc.), such a notion of interaction makes sense: we want to be able
to leverage our history of experiences (both cultural and personal) in order to
reduce the cognitive strain that might otherwise be involved. In
problem-posing task domains, however, like music composition, such a notion of
interaction can have an inhibitory effect. One way to encourage creative
problem-solving is to
problematise
the very representations and interactions in the context of which tasks and
goals are historically conceived [Truax 1986]. By this means, a human is
freed, at least to some extent, from historical patterns of thought and action
which often block fresh insight—a necessary precursor to creative thought
and action [Smith 1995].
Toward
this end, computers can be understood as tools for problematising interaction.
Understood in such a manner, the computer becomes a
semiotic,
rather than a
symbolic
processor, in that it assists in the postulation of possible, though as-yet
non-existent real-world scenarios, rather than referencing already existing
ones.
2.
The Interface
An
interaction is an exchange of energy between two differentiated existents, be
they imagined or physically realized. An "interface" defines the
mechanisms—physical, conceptual, and cultural—by which a set of
interactions appropriate to a particular cognitive domain is engendered. An
interface can be as simple as a door knob or as complex as an airplane cockpit,
or it can delineate a conceptual framework such as a text or a score.
Interface
design frequently concerns the rendering of an interaction such that it
requires minimal cognitive engagement with the task in question, relying
heavily on historically and culturally determined patterns of behavior and
cognition [Norman 1986]. A well-designed interface engenders a historical
performance in which the particular objects which populate an interaction
become virtually
invisible.
In such a context, 'things' become pieces of
equipment,
whose manner of appearance is closely correlated with the objective toward
which the interaction is directed [Heidegger 1962]. Heiddeger refers to the
cognitive orientation which such an interaction instills as "circumspective
being."
Circumspective
being is that way of being which is elicited by familiar tasks and task
environments; it is a way of being in which subject and object are submerged in
the apparent immediacy of a task and the actions required for its execution. In
the carpenter's experience, for instance, both hammer and hammerer disappear in
the immediacy of the task of
hammering.
Similarly, when writing a document using a word processor, if one is skilled
in the use of that word processing software, the functional aspects of the
software disappear in the interaction. According to such an understanding of
interaction, the human is directed toward the appropriation of an expected
performance; an arrangement by which her/his subjectivity is neutralized under
the imperative of the signified task. Only when something "breaks down" can the
objects which constitute the circumspective unfolding of the interaction begin
to appear
as
things
.
3.
Engineering a
Breakdown
in Circumspective Being
One
way to retard the rate at which human subjectivity is consumed by the
signifying imperative of an interaction, is to
engineer
such breakdown. No longer a vehicle for replicating historical methodologies,
the interface instead orients a hypothesized domain of interaction, thus
engaging the generation of an
unexpected
performance. Such an interaction projects a notion of the 'subject' that is
emergent
rather than
transcendent.
As emergent, the subject arises in the moment at which something unfamiliar,
or foreign, appears, and, in its labor over the comprehension and synthesis of
that something, projects itself toward it [Adorno 1993]. In a sense, the
moment of the appearance of an object represents the very commencement of the
subject—its beginning, that is, as an activated and activat
ing
agent, as opposed to a static,
a
priori
,
existent.
To
create such an environment is to constitute the appearance of things as foreign
objects—to cause the appearance of the object of interaction
as
Other
.
By situating the object as Other—as something which confronts the
subject with its very Otherness—the subject itself comes into crisis.
4.
Computation and Signification
As
a tool for the construction of interfaces, the computer enables the design of
mutable constructs by which such a breakdown might be engineered.
However,
oftentimes (particularly in the increasingly dominant commercial software
industry) the search for the proper representation is motivated by performative
criteria: what will best assist a human in comprehending and synthesizing
her/his experience
vis
a culturally appropriated understanding of the task domain. The underlying
metaphysical assumption is that there exists a "real" world which the computer
system references in the domain of interactions that it projects [Anderson
1997]. As a consequence of such design criteria, computers become 'virtual'
machines which project representations based on historical imperatives. In
this regard, they effect
symbolic
modes of representation.
A
symbol
is a special kind of sign, one that is "based on conventional relations between
signifier and signified." As Julia Kristeva notes, "in the case of the symbol
the signified object is represented by the signifying unit through a
restrictive function-relation" [Kristeva 1986].
This
function-relation defines an epistemological framework that is both immutable
and non-porous; it is, effectively, a
black
box
.
It orients an ontology in which interaction is circumscribed by a history of
use, and thus prone to that circumspective mode of being in which—as was
the case with the carpenter and hammer—both subject and object disappear
into the apparent immediacy of the interaction.
Within
the context of problem-posing and problem-solving task domains—such as
music composition—one frequently wishes to free oneself from the
historical constructs according to which those "pre-existing" things have been
defined. Here, strongly referential interfaces can actually
block
creative activity[Smith 1995]. In order to facilitate this kind of working
process, one wants an environment in which that which is
as-yet
unimagined might be formulated and realizable through the projection of an
unfamiliar pattern of interactions. In such an environment, historically
determined—and therefore
circumspective—modes
of interaction are thrown into crisis. Interaction thus becomes a context for
hypothesizing
a domain of actions and descriptions, rather than the simulation of already
existing ones.
As
a consequence of this shift in emphasis, representations move from being
immutable referencing agents—through which particular kinds of objects
and artifacts are referenced and understood—to becoming
orienting
agents wherein the actions by which such objects and artifacts are produced are
themselves hypothesized and thrown into question. Such an understanding
renders the computer as
semiotic
rather than
symbolic.
While the symbolic is concerned with representations of objects through a
fixed "function-relation", the semiotic is concerned with the "play of
signifiers" [Derrida 1981]. One becomes empowered to construct the very
processes through which a world is constituted. As an agent in this
empowerment, the computer is no longer bound to its otherwise
denotative
imperative. Rather it, becomes an epistemological tool for the construction of
representations and of domains of interaction within which those
representations are engendered.
5.
The Composition of Interaction
Such
a notion of interaction invigorated so-called experimental music composition of
the '50s and '60s. The musical score, for instance, became a context for the
problematisation of performance practice: musical notation articulated a set of
interactions not accounted for by historical practice. Without the cues which
an already well-known notation engenders, the performer could not fall back
upon habitual and acculturated patterns of relationship; s/he was forced to
re-invent those relations from scratch. Moreover, compositional procedure
itself was problematised through the concretization of compositional process
(e.g. serialism, chance procedures, stochastic processes).
The
electronic music studio introduced not merely a new set of sound producing
equipment (such had already been accomplished with instruments like the
Theremin), but the very restructuring of compositional activity itself. The
relationship between the particularity of a technology and the means by which
musical structures might be conceived and realized were understood as mutually
determinative [Di Scipio 1997]. With the computer, this mutual determination
is deepened: composition, computation, and interaction become deeply intertwined.
6.
Computation as Interaction
In
this paper, I propose that computation is, in great part, a context for
representation and interaction. As the stipulation of a system which
encapsulates a set of decisions or invites a set of descriptions, a computation
engenders a domain of interaction. Consider, for instance, two different
approaches to modeling the computation of a plucked string sound. The first
example is generated within CSound:
ar
pluck 10000,440,440,4,.5,2
The
second example is taken from
Modalys:
(define
my-str (make-object'mono-string (modes 20) (length 2)
(tension 120) (density 720) (radius .002) (young 2.1e9)
(freq-loss .3)(const-loss 1)))
In
CSound
parameter definitions are structured around the properties of amplitude,
frequency, initial attack buffer size, and index to a table from which initial
attack values are produced. In
Modalys
they are structured around various types of
modal
data. Both interfaces orient a particular mode of thought and action.
Modalys,
however, structures a more problematic interaction than
CSound.
Frequency, for instance, is only indirectly defined, through the specification
of string length, tension, and density. With such an interface, a composer may
at first stumble around more than that given with
CSound.
However, in the process, s/he is likely to discover a considerable variety of
principles according to which sounds might be composed. Through the discovery
of sound structuring principles, the composer participates in the descriptive
framework according to which sound might be generated.
7.
From Index to Artifact
In
both of these examples, the referencing agency is fixed to an indexical order,
in this case, a "plucked string" sound. An
index
conditions the activity of a human actor according to an appropriated
signifying order, thus delineating a domain of actions and descriptions
according to a pre-existing domain of objects and things.
An
artifact,
by contrast, begins as a design context in which the "subject" (i.e. the
"goal") of activity is the product of that activity itself. It thus
circumscribes a domain of actions and descriptions according to an
emergent
order. Human performance is contingent on the emergence of a particular order
and is not, as such, bound to an already fixed presentation [Simon 1969].
Such
an interface manifests
directive
comportment in that it includes the particular involvement of a human actor.
Many computer music systems project such an interpretation of the involvement
of the composer. The following set of instructions, taken from Herbert
Brün's
SAWDUST
[Blum
1979], reflects one such approach:
e1
= ELEMENT(100,200)
e2
= ELEMENT(70, -18000)
...
L1
= LINK(e1,e2,e3)
L2
= LINK(e4,e5)
M1
= MINGLE(L1,L2)={L1,L2,L1}
Here
six "elements" (e1 through e6) each define sequence of integer samples all of
which have the same amplitude. For instance, e1 consists of 100 samples all
with an amplitude of 200 while e2 is defined as a sequence of 70 samples all
having an amplitude of -18000. A waveform is created when 2 or more elements
are "linked". More complex waveforms result from operations such as MINGLE.
Such operations (others include MERGE, VARY, etc.) can be applied and combined
such that there is no differentiation, from the point of view of compositional
procedure, between operations which determine timbral features and those which
determine aspects of musical pattern and form. Moreover, no external sound
model is referenced; sound structure is predicated upon the very principles by
which sound is generated within the computer: patterns of amplitude values that
are supplied to the DAC.
8.
Interaction as Mediation
Many
other music software systems take this approach. I. Choi's
Chua's
Oscillator
is a physically based model whose dynamic behavior is defined by a set of three
ordinary differential equations plus a non-linear function [Choi 1997]. With
K. Corey's
Ivory
Tower
,
waveforms are generated through the composition of interactions of
self-modifying code bins [Corey 1997]. In
Foo,
each sound is understood within the context of the larger musical context in
which it is deployed [Eckel 1994]. M. Hamman's
ResNet
is an experiment in signal processing wherein signals are generated through
networks of dynamically configurable networks of delays and feedback
multipliers [Hamman 1994].
In
each such system—along with the many others—sound/music structure
and computation are closely intertwined within the context of a particular
idiosyncratic framework. Computation and musical process are mutually
determinative, and the notion of a computer system is tightly coupled with a
particular compositional
project.
Interaction becomes a form of
mediation—a
process in which an otherwise unperturbed cognitive frame is broken in order to
introduce the possibility of an elective subjectivity. Such a notion of
interaction presupposes that for every object, there is a particular "I" with
respect to which it arises, and that "the real subject matter is not exhausted
in its purpose, but in working the matter out" [Hegel 1967].
9.
References
[1]
Adorno, T.W., 1993.
Hegel:
Three Studies
.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
[2]
Anderson, P. B., 1997.
A
Theory of Computer Semiotics
.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Blum, T., 1979. "Herbert Brün: Project Sawdust."
Computer
Music Journal
3(1).
[4]
Choi, I., 1997. "A Chaotic Oscillator as a Musical Signal Generator in an
Interactive Performance System."
Journal
of New Music Research
26, pp. 17-47.
[5]
Corey, K., 1997. "My Algorithmic Muse."
Sonus
18 (1).
[6]
Derrida, J., 1981.
Positions,
transl. A. Bass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[7]
Di Scipio, A. 1997. "Interpreting Music Technology: From Heidegger to
Subversive Rationalization."
Sonus
18(1).
[8]
Eckel, G., and Gonzales-Arroyo, R., 1994. "Musically Salient Control
Abstractions for Sound Synthesis."
Proceedings
of the 1994 ICMC
,
pp. 256-259.
[9]
Hamman, M., 1994. "Dynamically Configurable Feedback/Delay Networks: A Virtual
Instrument Composition Model."
Proceedings
of the 1994 ICMC
,
pp. 394-397.
[10]
Hegel, G. W. F., 1967.
The
Phenomenology of Mind
,
transl. J. B Baille. New York: Harper & Row.
[11] Heidegger,
M., 1962.
Being
and Time
,
transl. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
[12]
Kristeva, J., 1986.
The
Kristeva Reader
,
ed. T. Moi. New York: Columbia University Press.
[13]
Laske, O. E., 1992. "The Humanities as Sciences of the Artificial,"
Interface
21, pp. 239-255.
[14] Norman,
D. A., 1986. "Cognitive Engineering."
User
Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction
.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[15]
Simon, H. A., 1969.
The
Sciences of the Artificial
.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[16] Smith,
S. M., 1995. "Fixation, Incubation, and Insight in Memory and Creative
Thinking," in
The
Creative Cognition Approach
,
ed. S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, and R. A. Finke. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
pp. 135-156.
[17] Truax,
B., 1986. "Computer Language Design and the Composing Process," in
The
Language of Electroacoustic Music
,
ed. S. Emmerson. London: MacMillan Press.