0.00
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Today's NASA APOD: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap201216.html Wow! I think that opens up a whole new medium, sound, to add to astroimages. More here: https://chandra.si.edu/photo/2020/sonify2/index.html I spent a few minutes looking for a tool chain, but am over my head in other projects at the moment. But if anyone finds an applicable toolchain please post here. |
7.42
... |
|---|
|
There was an app on the iPad about ten years ago that did just this sort of thing. It mapped a region of stars to notes on a user-selected scale or mode, which made it something akin to a random-note generator. Can't recall what it was called. Quite novel at the time. CS, Daniel |
 ... |
|---|
|
It appears that it is an old APOD with a visually distracting and topically irrelevant soundtrack added. Maybe someone will use this as a stepping-stone to a new art form, but that appears to be a long way off from this start. Alex W The original image is here: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html |
|
0.00
... |
|---|
Daniel Erickson: I did find some older tools, just not something ready to go on astroimages that would produce the results we saw. |
|
7.42
... |
|---|
Glenn C Newell: Yes, the app to which I refer was self-contained and not a tool for astroimaging...more of a novelty app than anything else. |
6.71
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Alex Woronow: Huh? what would be topically relevant? This article explains pretty well what they are tying to accomplish with this: https://lifestyle.livemint.com/smart-living/innovation/what-does-the-universe-sound-like-this-science-art-project-has-the-answers-111607793272261.html Glenn C Newell: The code does not appear to be open-source, but anyone interested could reach out to the creators of the code: https://www.system-sounds.com/contact/ |
19.68
...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Nico Carver: I agree with Nico. This group is striving to find a relationship between a graphical representation (photo) and sound generation. Not surprisingly, they started relationship similar to the rolling punch sheet of a player piano. The challenge is, while a player piano roll is punched to strike the proper keys with the proper timing to recreate an existing song, this sonification technique is striving to create music (or pleasing sounds) by altering the relationship between the shape, form, and color of the graphic and the sounds that are generated. Needless to say, some serious trial-and-error will be required. All in all, I find it kind of intriguing. That said, I'm sure it is not for everyone, which is the case for nearly all art forms. CS, Gary |
|
7.42
... |
|---|
|
I think I'll take a slightly different approach to this interesting topic. What they are doing in this project is 'mapping' color and brightness values to an arbitrary and unrelated set of sound values. "Brightness", for example, can map to loudness, with 'brighter' stars getting louder pitch representations. Color values (of stars, nebulae, whatever) can likewise be mapped, so a particular 'red' will map to a particular musical note. This key point here is that the relationship between graphic and sound mapping is completely arbitrary and can be changed in whatever way the human writing the algorithm wishes. I could just as easily decide IR to be 'high' notes and UV to be low frequency. It does not matter. I could choose to leave out a mapping correspondence altogether... I could decide green gets mapped to "silence" or to nothing at all (there is a difference). Again, it does not matter. There is, in this project, no assumption that a nebulae or star cluster has any 'real' sound that is being 'discovered' and 'played'. It can not boast the claim to be 'discovering what the universe sounds like' despite the enticing title of the article. What you have is a mapping algorithm, which, to me, is more like programming than anything else. In my opinion, this process (programming) is most emphatically not 'doing' art and the person doing the work is not, to me, an artist--regardless of how elegant the algorithm or whether the person has any musical talent. The person is a programmer or technician or, perhaps, craftsman. There is, of course, nothing 'wrong' with being any of these things, just as it is not 'bad' if I happen to believe that these people are not 'artists'. That's my view on the process. This programming process (not art) produces a result (a sequence of sounds). It is this result which interests me more. For me it is about the Hearer (you) and the Heard (programmed output result) coming together in a particular Context (presumably with an image of the DSO or whatever in the quiet of your study with a cup of tea, or whatever). This is called aesthetic experience. In my view what is central is your relationship with the object (I won't say "objet d'art") in the moment with its unique context. And, like all relationships, if it is to matter, it takes work. ;-) Is it beautiful? Is it pleasurable? Is it not or is it something else? What do you take away from it? How does it make you feel? What do you think? Does it move you or is it merely a random cacophony? Do you 'understand' something new from it, or is it just a waste of time? What do you know now that you didn't know before? Actually choosing to do something with 'it' in the moment is the aesthetic experience. One might say, then, that in that moment it is art. CS, Daniel |
|
6.71
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Daniel Erickson: Interesting. Could you explain why you don't think artists can employ programming to create art? It really can't be overstated how large an impact programming has had on the contemporary art scene in the past two decades. I've taught college courses on code as art using programming languages designed specifically for artists. So I would say the contemporary art world is pretty far away from your statement above, but I'd be interested to hear your rationale. |
|
7.42
... |
|---|
Nico Carver: Hi Nico! Thanks for asking. To be clear, I didn't say that one can't employ programming to create art. What I said was that I don't consider programmers to be artists or the act of programming to be the same thing as "doing art". The result of their work may, however, be "art", but that depends, like I said, on the result of a relationship: Observer+Object+Context. What is art to you, Nico? I don't even like to use the word "art" until the term has been clearly defined, precisely because what you and I mean (right now) are two completely different things. As far as the contemporary art world is concerned, I don't view the "contemporary art world" as a unified monolith that somehow a priori would exclude my view of the aesthetic experience. |
|
6.71
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Daniel Erickson: Thanks for the clarification. I too don't consider all programmers to be artists. I do believe that the act of programming can be the same thing as "doing art" if it is the intention of the artist to create art by writing a computer program. I don't really buy your separation of the program (the instructions) from the output (the sounds). This would be like saying conceptual artists don't create art, but rather art is simply a by-product of the instructions they wrote down. For me, it doesn't make sense; they are all inextricably linked together. I would define art as 'creative expression.' You may then wonder why all creative acts are not art. Well, I think people are creating things all the time, but unless they made choices to express something (an idea, an emotion, a new way of making art, etc.) then it is not art. So in a nutshell, I think my definition relies on the intention and process of the artist more, and your definition relies on the observer's experience. My issue with tying the observer's experience in with the definition of what is and isn't art is that it makes the definition very hard to pin down and very subjective. My definition doesn't stop the observer from having an opinion on the art or having a unique experience with it. Whenever I try to follow your side of the argument to what I would consider its logical conclusion, I don't see the word 'artist' as being useful anymore. Instead it would seem people just make things, and then observers decide if what they made is or isn't art. |
|
7.42
... |
|---|
Nico Carver: I think I may have misunderstood you. Let me recast your sentence by swapping terms and seeing if the logic holds: "I do believe that the act of creating art can be the same thing as "programming" if it is the intention of the programmer to write a program by doing art. " Where did I go wrong? Conceptual Art (shades of Marcel's urinals) is an interesting case. I actually don't believe it applies here because of our different definitions of 'art'...so I'm going to drop this point...suffice it to say that I agree with you that in this case they are linked together. Nico Carver: I don't define art in quite this way, and I do not value the observer in the way you think I do. Read on. I think we can agree that whatever art is, there's got to be an intentioned (and human?) creative component in its creation. But art isn't just in its creation, otherwise it is only for the creator. Art is also in its (I hate this word) appreciation, and that means observer...And observer means the artist and John Q Public. I am not resorting to subjectivism, but I do find it funny that artists tend to cast themselves in a different light from those who "appreciate" the art...but I digress... I am not resorting to subjectivism. Subjectivism is binary. It is me vs. the art. Art is so much more. To me, art is a way of knowing; when done properly--a pragmatic understanding of experience. It is local, personal, unique (context sensitive). It is sensory, as well as (depending on your view) intellectual and emotional. It is more of a verb than a noun. The experience of art is, as I said earlier, about relationship. This relationship does not exclude or dismiss the artist. In fact, it embraces the artist completely. The artist is, in fact, the "first observer" in this mediated context. As far as the word 'artist' goes, it is clearly still useful. But consider this. Who deserves the title 'artist'? Is it enough to say an artist is someone who creates with intention? Is a person who perfunctorily knocks out 100 cheap paintings a day, intentionally, but without caring or involvement, an artist? I don't think so. Real artists, to me, are exceedingly rare. They are the ones who manifest themselves in every work of art. They observe and are in relationship with their creations. And they give me the opportunity to know. |
|
19.68
...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Nico Carver: I agree with Nico's definition of art as creative expression where there is intention of the creator to make art. Which is, by the way, what happened in the Sonification project. I also agree with Daniel that for art to be more that personal expression it need to be "appreciated" by anther person. There is no art without an audience since I think we would all agree that art is intended to move people's emotions. Without an audience no emotions are impacted, except maybe the creators. I disagree with Daniel that someone must attain some level of accomplishment to "deserve" to be called an artist. There are a lot of people that play baseball; some good, many not so good, but they are all baseball players. There are also a lot of people that make art; some good, many not so good. The audience that art commands may be a reasonable measure of the success of the artist. Finally, back to the Sonification project. As I mentioned from the onset of this conversation. I find it intriguing and worthy of exploration. Will it result in the creation of sounds that move my emotions, or that I find beautiful, or that compel me to keep listening? Probably not. But that's is just my reaction to the creation. Someone else may find that the sounds make them feel something special and for them it is art. |
|
7.42
...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Gary Lopez: I've agreed with this, as well. Gary Lopez: I never said this. My claim is more nuanced and I believe I wasn't clear enough: if a person claims to be an artist, but doesn't have the artistic/creative intent in their work--if they do it for money, fame, profit, e.g., then I don't personally consider that person an artist. This position allows for anybody to "make art"...good or bad, as you say, Gary. However, I stand by my comment that real artists are rare. Gary Lopez: Yes, finally back to the sonification project. I agree with you here, 100%... and, as I said at the end of my first long post above regarding the sonification experience: Daniel Erickson: Are the skies clear yet? Let's take some pictures! :-) |
|
6.71
...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Daniel Erickson: They are for me! So excited, just took a picture of the conjunction with a church steeple that I think is going to turn out really well.  Now I'm setting up for deep sky for the rest of the night. A bit slow going with all the snow we got here in Boston, but nice to be out imaging again regardless.
|
|
7.42
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Nico Carver: Most excellent! Enjoy! I hope you post the conjunction photo here! As for my domain, clouds and rain for another fortnight...better hope for clear skies sooner for me--it'll keep me off the forums. ;-) Thanks for the wonderful exchange of ideas. |
|
19.68
...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Daniel Erickson: It is even more maddening than clouds here. The night sky is clear, but the seeing is not good. Keeping my fingers crossed that things will stabilize soon. I wish you both happy holidays and clear skies, Gary |
