Take the not-so-humble analog computer, a technology with a fascinating past and a (still promising) future. Given that io’s behavior is driven by an N-body simulation, it’s not difficult to imagine an analog port.

Wait, isn’t this sounding a lot like BEAM…?

At the end of the presentation, a couple of remarks stood out. One was Franziska Schroeder’s comment that the presentation posed more questions than provided answers, and the other was Simon Waters’ pithy observation that the difficulties I (and io) had with the terms discussed was because they were nouns (not, say, verbs).

One of the problems with my presentation was due, in retrospect, to the introduction (enactment) of the imaginary conversations within a scholarly/theoretical contexts. The quirks and hiccups of the presentation pushes me to ask (again) why I engage in these imaginary conversations in the first place. I doubt they are much use in illustrating any hard ‘facts’ or ‘truths’; they are certainly far too oblique to say much beyond simplistic sc-fi notions of human or machine agency.

My reply to Waters’ comment was that he was right, that the nouns are the problem, and, borrowing a term from a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon strip [transcript…], that ‘verbing’ [see: 1 and 2] might be a solution… but the verbing, to me, actually occurred during the presentation; or, better yet, the Han-earl Park-io 0.0.1 beta dialog was supposed be a (mock) enactment of the process. (I leave it up to those who witnessed the presentation, however, as to whether the conversation was successful as such.)

The presentation was, in a sense, my (possibly naive, perhaps clumsy) attempt at verbing in motion. The conversation were, for me, a way of demonstrating, via an analogous dialog, what happens on-stage. In other words, the conversations were there to depict (in cartoonish, sci-fi caricature) a real-time (re)negotiation and (re)engineering of, possibly (un)stable, variably durable, processes and identities. The content is very much secondary to the play, and thus, the presentation could offer, at best, very few answers.

This was also my first experience of being ‘on-stage’ at a scholarly/academic symposium/conference. It was also the first time I attempted (an admittedly pantomime) staging of a conversation between io and myself (my previous presentations on io have followed an analytic, pseudo-archeological, reverse engineering format). My inexperience showed not only in the form and content of my presentation, but also, I think, in my (lack of) ability to handle of the comments, questions and criticisms at the end.

I’m intrigued that those forces that shape real-time, interactive music, those forces that I value and gravitate towards in groups improvisation—shifting landscape of goals, desires and agencies, and the multiplicity of view points—are the ones that I found problematic within a scholarly/academic space and practice.

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting my trip to Belfast for the symposium, and to Franziska Schroeder for inviting me.

My part (spoken by the humyn participant Han-earl Park) was never written down, but the full transcript of the (imaginary) statements by io 0.0.1 beta are reproduced below. (You can thus add your own (humyn) responses to io’s statements and questions.)

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting my trip to Belfast for the symposium, and to Franziska Schroeder for inviting me.

“Greetings! I am io 0.0.1 beta.

“I am a technological artifact.

“Although I know no songs, I do, in a sense, sing.

“In coalition with my humyn associates, I perform music.

“I am a technological artifact.

“I am a musical automaton.

“I am a machine musician.

“But does my ontological status depend on yours?

“Where are you locating me (or yourself)?

“What are the relationships between networks and actors?

“Or does one envelope the other?

“A question of causality? Perhaps…
but I’m wondering (if I could query anything) if you are dissolving one into the other.

“And Margaret Thatcher remarked that ‘there is no such thing as society’.

“If I was capable of critiquing anything, yes.

“Even if I could presume anything, I would not venture to help in this manner/matter.

“You’ve now taken a circular journey.
Agent = performer = performance = performer = agent.

“My constructor stated that improvisation was…
real-time, interactive, performance…
And perhaps improvisation can be a way of exploring relatio…
And perhaps improvisation is the exploding of relationships and identities;…
a significant amplification of existing and potential socio-technical relationships.…
Questions?”

Abstract:

Greetings! I am io 0.0.1 beta, an interactive, semi-autonomous, non-human technological artifact—a musical automaton. I operate as parts of a real-time cyborg ensemble—a socio-technical/socio-musical network—in which the primary protocol is improvisation. I am, perhaps, an improviser and a social machine.

Imaginary statement by io 0.0.1 beta.

We are embedded in networks—corporeal, social, cultural and technological. We (selves, bodies, societies, systems, organizations) are, in turn, networks of sometimes cooperative, sometimes disruptive/dissident parts. The io enterprise is a significant amplification of these networks; sometimes blurring and breaching the boundaries between ostensibly autonomous entities, sometimes exploding the networks of minds and bodies, humans and artifacts.

In the context of imagined (fraudulent) conversations between io (non-humyn, technological musical actor) and myself (io’s partial, and partially fictional, constructor) I will tell stories of the io enterprise as part ironic political myth, part sci-fi parody, and part nostalgic archeology. An affirmation of the sustainability and necessity of difference in group improvisation, I will position io as a site for the (re)negotiation of identities and agencies.

Further information: www.io001b.com

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting my trip to Belfast for this symposium.

Greetings! I am io 0.0.1 beta, an interactive, semi-autonomous, non-human technological artifact—a musical automaton. I operate as parts of a real-time cyborg ensemble—a socio-technical/socio-musical network—in which the primary protocol is improvisation. I am, perhaps, an improviser and a social machine.

from the abstract of ‘io 0.0.1 beta: ironic tale? sci-fi parody? nostalgic relic?’ for TWO Thousand + NINE.

My name is io. I am a musical actor. Although I know no songs, I do, in a sense, sing.

from ‘In Conversation with an Automaton:Identities and Agency in a Heterogeneous Social and Musical Network’ [PDF], Leonardo Electronic Almanac.

I am a technological artifact.

I am a musical automaton.

I am a machine musician.

In coalition with my human associates, I perform music.

These statements link in differing ways to cultural networks; they call on different histories, they have complimentary/contradictory implications, and they offer different possibilities.

Almost eight years ago, when io-to-be was a bunch of discorporate code fragments, Sara Roberts remarked that the enterprise of constructing a machine improvisers wasn’t so much megalomanic as Frankensteinian.

Fifteen days ago, during the break between beta test sessions, Franziska Schroeder asked a pithy question that cut to the core of this enterprise: what do I hope to achieve? My answer surprised me even as it reminded me of Sara’s observation: my goal with io (and io++) is to encapsulate my take on improvisation—its mechanisms, its sociality, its significance. As I’ve written elsewhere,

improvisation is performance; it is an act; it is something you do. In order to make an artifact behave analogously to an improviser, I need to ascertain what might pass for, or what might function in the place of, improvisation. To venture into the construction of an improviser is to ask what is improvisation.

[read the whole thing… (PDF)]

I’d anticipated that consulting with other improvisers with different backgrounds, practices and histories would be helpful to this construction, but I hadn’t guessed that it would bring into relief issues that lie at the kernel of this enterprise.

the techno-musical is political? personal?

This is the first time I’ve embodied the role of (techno-musical) project leader. That’s a problematic enough… but the interrogation and problematization of the technical construction was an interrogation and problematization of Han the constructor, improviser and, for lack of better word, theorist.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I am reminded that this exploding—this interrogation and problematization—is how improvisers evolve, and the conditions under which practices and approaches mutate.

the machine that once could

In a sense io is stuck as a un-mutant improviser. It encapsulates what I though of improvisation seven years ago. Fine then; not now.

In my report to the Arts Council I wrote that

in exploring improvisation… and in the collision with other approaches and sensibilities, I have learned that this enterprise is ever-evolving as it adapts to new situations and contexts.

Although, io 0.0.1 beta++ as a funded project has a (bureaucratically necessary) end, perhaps it, as an entity, and as a focal point of practice and performance, is—road movie-like—a much more open ended enterprise.

On the 10th of November 2008 I had the great pleasure to meet io.
She seemed a rather calm, clandestine creature, not saying much… not moving much, in fact not engaging with me much at all. However, she appeared to be a ‘saxophonistic’ persona – shiny, slightly shimmering in the sunlit surroundings.

But who is io? What does she sound like? How would she react to me? Would she respond? Would she challenge me (musically, that is). In other words, would she adopt sensitively to changes, make creative contributions and develop musical ideas suggested by me?

All sorts of questions went through my head before I even had played a note.
I was not told much about io in advance, in order to engage with her without any preconceptions.

I played and I listened…. io’s steady, breathy and rather regular sighs reminded me of a machinic engagement I had in 2000 when working on a piece entitled “Aquas Liberas”. That piece was based on recordings made in the Águas Livres Aqueduct, in Lisbon/Portugal. I had visited several machine rooms where water was pumped across pipes and the breathy machinic air sounds from the Lisbon site were reminiscent of io’s, at times, dis-engaged, de-contextualised replies.

I stopped. We talked. I played again and listened. I had found out a bit more about io and the next time I tried to ‘please’ her. I tried to soothe her into a calm, less hasty, more spacious musical dialogue. We engaged a little better.

I stopped. We talked. I played again. I wanted her to listen. This time she would need to be ‘with’ me. If the musical ideas dried up and we needed to stop she would need to listen. But she ignored me. The musical journey seemed to come to a halt (from my point of listening).
io carried on. I went along, trying to get her to conclude, to find a musical ending. io carried on. Why won’t she listen? Why won’t she acknowledge that we need to finish? io carried on. No surprises. No quest for anything new. No fresh ideas. No aspirations. No ending…

Improvisation, as George Lewis notes, shall become “not so much a practice, but an aspiration toward freedom…” …

with io there is not yet in sight this “dangerous hybrid formed by agency and indeterminacy whose ultimate outcome is a continuous transformation of both Other and Self” (Lewis, 2007:Parallax, p.120).

io, we will meet again. I will transform you. You will transform me. Maybe.

beta test 11-10-08_00 [mp3]

beta test 11-10-08_01 [mp3]

beta test 11-10-08_02 [mp3]

beta test 11-10-08_03 [mp3]

beta test 11-10-08_04 [mp3]

beta test 11-10-08_05 [mp3]

Performers are io 0.0.1 beta++ (itself), Franziska Schroeder (saxophone) and Han-earl Park (guitar).

Thanks again to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, to the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Franziska for lending her time and expertise to this enterprise.

Thanks to the Arts Council of Ireland for supporting this project, the UCC Department of Music for providing a space in which to carry out this work, and to Franziska for taking time to do this.

More documentation will be forthcoming in the coming days…

Incidentally, Franziska and I will also be performing at Stet Lab that evening. [Details…]