Photo © 2010, Stephanie Hough.

Back, behind-the-scenes, I still have some articles in draft form that both detail the nuts’n’bolts decision-making processes in the construction of a machine improviser, and self-reflective critique such constructions, detailing the trade-offs and shortcomings of such an entity, and its design and implementation. I would like to get back to work on these at some point as they may provide as both cautionary tales and critical guides in future constructions of ‘creative’ automata and machine performances, and to anyone engaged in the critical (reverse-)engineering of such entities and their constructions. (There are so many stories, (self-)reflective and (self-)critical, of shortcoming and failures that get lost in our need to tell tales of technocultural heroics.)

Meanwhile, in this post I’d like to provide a selective index of documentation of io 0.0.1 beta++, its construction and performance, both of material published on this site and elsewhere.

Overview

\ constructor: Han-earl Park
\ copyright 2008 buster & friends' C-ALTO Labs
\
\ www.busterandfriends.com/io
\
\ (Edinburgh, November 1996 -
\ (London, August 1997 -
\ (Den Haag, October 1997 -
\ (Valencia, March 1999 -
\ (Southampton, May 2000 -
\ (Cork, April 2006 -
\
\ (Cork, October 2008 -
\
\ REV: 0.0.1 alpha (Southampton, October 2000)
\ REV: 0.0.1 beta (Southampton, November 2000)
\ REV: 0.0.1 alpha++ (Southampton, July 2004)
\ REV: 0.0.1 beta++ (Cork, May 2010)

io 0.0.1 beta++ is an interactive, semiautonomous technological artifact that, in partnership with its human associates, performs a deliberately amplified staging of a socio-technical network—a network in which the primary protocol is improvisation. Together the cyborg ensemble explores the performance of identities, hybrids and relationships, and highlights the social agency of artifacts, and the social dimension of improvisation. Engineered by Han-earl Park, io 0.0.1 beta++ is a descendant, and significant re-construction, of his previous machine musicians, and it builds upon the work done with, and address some of the musical and practical problems of, these previous artifacts.

Standing as tall as a person, io 0.0.1 beta++ whimsically evokes a 1950s B-movie robot, constructed from ad-hoc components including plumbing, kitchenware and missile switches. It celebrates the material and corporeal; embracing the localized and embodied aspects of sociality, performance and improvisation.

Chronology

• 1996–1999: Coding of early experiments, tests, and software components:
  • Edinburgh, 1996–1997
  • London, 1997
  • The Hague, 1997–1999
• March 1999: Construction of io begins in earnest, Valencia, California.
• April 2000: Debut performance of working prototype of io at the Roy O. Disney Concert Hall, California Institute of the Arts, Valencia.
• October 2000: REV: 0.0.1 alpha, Southampton, England.
• November 2000: REV: 0.0.1 beta, Southampton.
• December 2000: Recording of io 0.0.1 beta at De Illusie, The Hague, The Netherlands.
• July 2004: REV: 0.0.1 alpha++, Southampton.
• January 2008: With funding from the Arts Council of Ireland, major update and revision of io begins, Cork, Ireland.
• May 2010: REV: 0.0.1 beta++, Cork, Ireland.
  • Recording session at Ó Riada Hall, UCC Department of Music.
  • Debut performance at Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork with funding from Music Network and support from UCC Department of Music.
• August 2011: ‘io 0.0.1 beta++’ (SLAMCD 531) released by SLAM Productions.

Documentation

Audio recordings

We watch and listen carefully because we know we’re seeing a kind of manifesto in action. What is an automaton? A sketch, a material characterization of the ideas the inventor and the inventor’s culture have about some aspect of life, and how it could be. io and its kind are alternate beings born of ideas, decisions and choices. It is because io stands alone, an automaton, that the performance recorded on this CD not only is music, but is about music.

Sara Roberts (from the liner notes)

[Additional recording…]

Articles and publications

My article, ‘In Conversation with an Automaton: Identities and Agency in a Heterogeneous Social and Musical Network’ [local copy…], published in the Leonardo Electronic Almanac: ‘My Favorite Things: The Joy of the Gizmo’ (Volume 15, No. 11-12, November–December 2007) is still probably the best description of the motivations and choices behind the io enterprise.

Abstract

io 0.0.1 beta is an interactive, semi-autonomous technological artifact that, in partnership with its human associates, performs a deliberately amplified staging of a socio-technical network—a network in which primary protocol is improvisation. In this paper, I explore the performance of identities, hybrids and relationships, illustrating the space between myself (human partner and constructor) and io through imaginary conversations between us. Considering that io highlights, in particular, the social agency of artifacts, I find it fitting that my own notions about the nature of improvisation, the technical and the social have changed through my interactions with io.

[Read the rest…] [Local copy…]

In addition, this site has the following short pieces about the construction of io 0.0.1 beta++:

Han-earl Park, ‘frankenmusic(s),’ November 25, 2008:

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. [Read the rest…]

Franziska Schroeder, ‘io + I met,’ November 24, 2008:

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? [Read the rest…]

Images

images © 2010 Stephanie Hough, and © 2010–2011 Han-earl Park [additional images (google gallery)…]

Source code

Download all source files (requires HMSL to run):

• io 0.0.1 beta++ (322kB .zip archive)…
• Supporting components (180kB .zip archive)…

View individual source files linked below:

\ additional midi stuff

include?  task-midi_plus  myt:midi_plus


\ device classes

include?  task-device           myt:device
include?  task-midi_device      myt:midi_device
include?  task-interpreter      myt:interpreter
include?  task-ctrl_interpreter myt:ctrl_interpreter
include?  task-fan_out          myt:fan_out


\ input components

include?  task-parser         myt:parser
include?  task-mono_parser    myt:mono_parser
include?  task-mono_parser+   myt:mono_parser+
include?  task-poly_parser    myt:poly_parser
include?  task-guitar_parser  myt:guitar_parser

include?  task-parser_list    myt:parser_list

include?  task-pulse_tracker  myt:pulse_tracker
include?  task-pulse_tracker+ myt:pulse_tracker+

include?  task-banalyzer      myt:banalyzer
include?  task-banalyzer+     myt:banalyzer+


\ output components

include?  task-gm_instrument myt:gm_instrument
include?  task-gm_drumkit    myt:gm_drumkit
include?  task-gm_patch      myt:gm_patch

include?  task-vl_sysex      myt:vl_sysex
include?  task-vl_instrument myt:vl_instrument
include?  task-vl_patch      myt:vl_patch


\ "henri poincare"

include?  task-floatingpoint      hsys:floatingpoint

include?  task-hp_util            myt:hp_util
include?  task-hp_fputil          myt:hp_fputil

include?  task-hp_particle        myt:hp_particle
include?  task-hp_force           myt:hp_force
include?  task-hp_space           myt:hp_space
include?  task-hp_gravity         myt:hp_gravity
include?  task-hp_fpgravity       myt:hp_fpgravity

include?  task-hp_particle_player myt:hp_particle_player


\ graphics

include?  task-graph_plus    myt:graph_plus
include?  task-gr_view       myt:gr_view
include?  task-screen+       myt:screen+
include?  task-ctrl_numeric+ myt:ctrl_numeric+


\ io -- globals and configuration

include?  task-io_config   io:io_config
include?  task-io_glob     io:io_glob


\ io -- modules

include?  task-io_interp_table io:modules:io_interp_table
include?  task-io_interp       io:modules:io_interp
include?  task-io_player       io:modules:io_player

include?  task-io_particle     io:modules:io_particle
include?  task-io_space        io:modules:io_space
include?  task-io_patches      io:modules:io_patches

include?  task-io_pdur_dlog    io:modules:io_pdur_dlog


\ io -- main components

io_test? .IF
	
	include?  task-hp_screen   myt:hp_screen
	include?  task-hp_screen+  myt:hp_screen+
	
.THEN

include?  task-io_hp      io:io_hp
include?  task-io_matrix  io:io_matrix
include?  task-io_input   io:io_input
include?  task-io_output  io:io_output


\ io - user interface

include?  task-io_ui      io:io_ui
include?  task-io_screen  io:io_screen

io_file? .IF
	
	include?  task-file_elmnts     myt:file_elmnts
	include?  task-file_elmnts_mac myt:file_elmnts_mac
	
	include?  task-io_file_scene   io:modules:io_file_scene
	include?  task-io_file_glue    io:modules:io_file_glue
	include?  task-io_file         io:modules:io_file
	
.THEN

io_turnkey? .IF
	
	include?  task-dialog     myt:dialog
	include?  task-midi_menu  myt:midi_menu
	
	include?  task-io_menus   io:modules:io_menus
	
.THEN


\ io - top level

include?  task-io_top  io:io_top

Franziska Schroeder and io 0.0.1 beta++ (prototype) (Cork, March 26, 2009)

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.

[Original article…] [Audio documentation of the testing session…]

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.