Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
learnt from the results of their use in art, our own and others. The design of the
tool also steers our thoughts and our imagination towards what is possible or easy,
and towards what is achievable, practical, or challenging. This amounts to Norman's
(
1988
) use of Gibson's (
1977
)term
affordance
.
When learning a new tool, I gradually form a cognitive model of how it works.
Spaces of potential results open up in my mind, expanding as the cognitive model
gets more elaborate and accurate. If it is reasonably adequate, it gives me a predic-
tive capacity in relation to that specific tool. That is, I have some expectation of what
will happen when I use the tool in a certain way. But the predictions are not always
correct, because of my limited cognition, or because of mistakes or tool failures,
which introduce unexpected results and irregularities to the material.
The topology inferred by the tool also brings a kind of metric—a system of dis-
tances. Different points in the result space are at different distances from each other,
i.e. certain points are easier or more difficult to reach from where you are. This is
dependent on a formal metric—the number of times you have to apply the tool to
get there, but also on a perceived metric, affected by the tool precision, the difficulty
of use, and the affordance of the tool—certain paths are more easily accessible than
others, and narrow paths may be more rewarding. A skilled listener or viewer can
perceive this metric, and it is part of the experience of the artwork; the perceived
effort, respect for craftsmanship and skill, in a kind of empathetic appreciation.
As an example of how tools steer our thoughts, we can compare two common
kinds of musical tools:
predesigned
and
modular synthesisers
.
1
The first category,
the predesigned synthesiser, provides a certain number of functions in a fixed con-
figuration, typically routing sound signals from tone generators through a filter and
variable amplifier, modulated by a limited set of gestural modulators to shape the
sound over time. All these functions are controlled by a fixed number of parameters.
Behind such an instrument are careful considerations by the instrument designer re-
garding playability, choice of features, interface design, relevance of parameters,
etc. A modular synthesiser, on the other hand, provides a large number of abstracted
functions in modules that can be connected in any order and configuration, with free
routing of audio and control signals. Typical modules include: oscillators, filters,
modulation sources, amplifiers, mixers, etc. Digital modular systems, additionally,
provide free configuration of processing resources, and their openness and flexibil-
ity essentially equals that of computer programming. The predesigned synthesiser
is a subset of the modular synthesiser, and the latter can easily be configured to
mimic most predesigned synthesisers. Despite this shared functionality, we seldom
use them in the same way. Users of modular synths are predominantly occupied
by changing the configuration and routing, adding and removing modules from the
signal chain. It is only rarely used to build an optimal configuration which is then
subject to extensive exploration of its parameter space. The main difference between
the two is in the variables they provide. Their spaces are different in size and scope,
1
These comments on how synthesisers are used, are based on background studies made in con-
junction with the design and development of an interactive evolutionary sound design tool for the
Nord Modular G2 synthesiser (Dahlstedt
2007
).
