Tutorial 7

31st of January 2019 – Tutorial with Jonathan Kearney

It was, as ever, such a fine exchange: talking through the latest developments JK and I took a good look at my blog reports from tutorial 6 onwards. We spoke about the ongoing logical and disciplined practice research with my cans, as recommended by JK, while having fun with it, and enjoying the creative outcomes along the way. The in-depth approach of this focus proofs itself easily and there is so many further to explore, I know, which may lead to a good yield too.

We both like the name of the Found Sound Machine and discussed the idea of the engine as well and realised the emphasise is about the ‘Found Sound’. We talked about slowing the sound down and the possibility to expand that slow-motion sound, boost the bass f.i., and about surround sound in a spatial setting. I did not do any sound filtering, while my idea is the real-time must prevail in some way, to keep it connected to real-life, whatever that is, so not much post-production (whatever ‘much’ may be). The principle of transformations of sounds was therefore halted for later experiments.

We spoke about the visual aspects of the anti-gravity movement. I like this as part of the digital domain contrasting the real-time physical space: video is without gravity.

We agree that FSM 5.2 stands out visually, maybe because of the little hints of colour that appear though the subtracting of the video layers. You can’t get around what is actually happening, which makes it interesting to watch and hear. However, there are little details in FSM 4.2 like that vibration of the spindle because of the heavy ceramic piece, that makes it feel almost ‘human’, as it is kind of out-of-control. I like the simplicity of the form of the tin can directly on the spindle though. In FSM 5.2 the reflections in the background are also really important while giving it an environment, a 3-dimensional aspect as it were.

It is clear that the sound production came first, the sound engineering started it off and the visuals followed afterwards. JK suggested key-framing as another way to approach the visual result furthermore. I could do this in for example taking and combining 5.2 and 4.2 to get new visual alternatives if wished for.

We talked about (me) missing interaction in some of the works. I feel the can-motion work as quite an introvert way of working. I long also to the more extravert interactions which also deal with the interpersonal. It is great to make an oeuvre from all sides.

Machine learning, PureData and Max MSP were subjects too. It is clear that I want to create works and not get into too much tinkering and technical details.

JK asked whether I would stick with the material framework like the tin can, spindle, lit, screws as basic format. Yes, I will delve further in this direction but the conceptual principle stays the key. JK remarked that one could see the representation of motion, like the result of the Markov model. Like my fine body of research from which all kind of expressions could spread out.

Then, I explained my concepts in the direction of the final exhibition. Honestly, I do not yet want to ‘give them away’ right here in this blog. First I want to experiment and play with them, so I will permit myself to keep some coming concepts secret. Curious…? Sorry, but I like to have some new stock to surprise!

JK was not amazed of the number of my ideas, and spoke about my confidence in the working process, like digging in, exploring, trying not to miss something, as well as going in a certain way and keeping that tricky balance. I feel modestly proud and encouraged at the same time.

At this time I am really interested in open calls for MA students. We talked about Xhibit and other calls. For the former JK said that he was most drawn to FSM 5.2 and the print ‘Motion captured’. He suggested that a combination of the two could be an attractive proposal. The video could also be in portrait format (I did that already) and be juxtaposed with the portrait print on aluminum. (The visual proposal is seen here).

Furthermore we have spoken about the importance of space for the final exhibition. About the dynamics of a group show, without curator though, and about everybody wanting to show a lot of personal work. JK gave great collaborative examples from last year regarding this matter. He also tipped me: if possible the sound should change, not at all times loud, but also softer for times, then it is much better to bear. It became apparent to me that it will take quite some time before the available spaces will be known, so I decided to keep my works modular as the best option.

In short, it was such a rich conversation again, thanks so much Jonathan.

Lastly, we couldn’t help ourselves talking briefly about me importing empty cans after Brexit Britain. Should I fill them with food :)), hopefully not!