Tangible Orchestra is an interactive art installation that projects music to be perceived individually in a three-dimensional space. It consists of seven individual 3D printed cylinders that play their unique instrument if people in close proximity are identified by a complex system of sensors. The3D printed cylinders create aunique musical experience for the observer, as the cylinders that are closer will be perceived as being louder and more dominant in relation to the ones that are further away. Let’s take a look at what happens when 3D printing meets live art and music.
Live performances have been augmented with technology in a number of notable performances this century. We have seen the digital interact with the actual in a number of ways. The live performances of The Gorillaz comes to mind, with ‘3D hologram’ images of the cartoon creations as the focal point, with the ever innovative Damon Albarn singing out of sight. Here’s a cool example in the form of the 2006 performance by The Gorillaz and Madonna live at the Grammy Awards.
Could it be said that we now live in the era of the interactive, where digital technology has created new modes and means of mass engagement? Has the post-modernist ideal of emphasising the individual interpretation of creative art-forms been met by new means of realisation with technology? Will 3D printing produce new ways for individualisation and personalisation to manifest within the creative vision of producers? The noteworthy addition of Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am as the Chief Creative Officer at 3D Systems suggests that the future of live music, visual art, creator and consumer could apex in the format of 3D printing.
But Tangible Orchestra is no celebrity adorned, mass audience popular music. Tangible Orchestra is akin to fine art, gallery installations and thought provoking conceptualisation. And that is no simple niche to participate in. By 1952 it could have been said that every possibility within the creation of live music had been explored. John Cage’s 4’33”, four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence of instruments to allow the audience to listen to itself and the environment, pretty much created the most extreme permutation of music as conceptual art that year. But technology moves on, and at an ever quicker pace, and whereby the extremes of conceptuality have been explored, the peripheral ground is constantly fed new possibilities for the conceptualisation and experience of audio within art.
What John Cage created in 1952 was perhaps the musical equivalent of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain in 1917. A divisive work that on one hand could be seen as the end of, or ultimate conclusion for a way of thinking about, an art-form. On the other, new beginnings and possibilities were created, opening the door for a new strata of potential works by pushing the boundaries regarding what is acceptable. The twentieth century itself could be seen as the era of pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. The spirit of artistic liberal conceptual endeavour was paralleled by scientific endeavour that pushed the boundaries of human understanding beyond all recognition. Both the artistic and scientific boundary pushing also had the effect of pushing the paradigm breakers, pushing the avant garde out of the reach of appreciation by many. By the end of the century, as few people could find the time, willingness and ability to understand what is remarkable about the work of an artist such as Tracy Emin as could find the time, willingness and ability to conceptualise String Theory.
Modernism was shaped by a capitalist Fordist–Keynesian paradigm of mass, standardised production and consumption; while post-modernism was forged from a more flexible form of capital accumulation, labour markets and organisations. Will there be a new era of techno-modernism where the personal factory — the local 3D printing hub and desktop 3D printer — is one of the primary means by which individual, personalised production and consumption facilitate unique subjective interpretations of works, where the democratised online networks allow us to share our experience of the sensory experiences created by the artist and the musician?
Modernism was in part a reaction to the potential of mass production. It sought to create a social as well as artistic aesthetic of perfection, a minimalistic harmony of utility, a descriptor of a total that was worth more than the components. At its inception and at its best, it could be said that Modernism was a movement that challenged the existing anticipations and expectations of society, challenging the assumptions and generalisations that dictated decorum and beauty in a world moving momentously from imperialist and religious power centres to industrialist and capitalist power centres. At its demise and at its worst, it could be said that Modernism was a faux utopian homogeneity produced by elite industrialist technocrats who had merely supplanted top-down planning by aristocracy who were disconnected from the needs of the masses, with top-down planning by themselves, who were equally disconnected from the needs of the masses.
Postmodernism was in part a reactionary series of movements that sought to remedy the totalitarian aspects of ubiquity of ideal in form and function, to encompass the minority, to respect that cultures are distinct, disparate and definitive, that mass production can force conformity upon a marketplace as much as serve its audience of consumers.
But now, with this foundation in place, we perhaps reside in the trough before a new wave, the crest of which may be tempestuously high, or simply yet another mundane peak, where 3D printing may in time allow a mass basis for personalised products. Just as Modernism and Postmodernism were accompanied by artworks that were both defined by the science and technology of their era and defined the culture of their era, are we already witnessing the first works defined by 3D printing that will define a new culture shift, a new era?
You can judge here for yourself and watch the Tangible Orchestra:
Tangible Orchestra from Picaroon on Vimeo.
The use of 3D printing in Tangible Orchestra is more an incidental production method for realisation of a conceptual work of art, and there is no huge ramifications by that use. There is as much of a connotation of individualism and unique experiences inherent in 3D printing as a consumer technology however as there is the intended aim of individual sensory perception within the piece itself. The interaction of human and machine, the meeting point of the digital and the actual, are also common themes between this interesting installation and the technology used to aid its production. And how that technology comes together is interesting in itself. To quote:
’Human interaction with the Tangible Orchestra is made possible by 16 ultrasonic sensors on the inside of each cylinder granting a 360 degree field of view. Those sensors are run by an integrated processor evaluating and comparing the readings of all sensors making very accurate assessments. An imaginary bubble with a dynamically adjustable radius is drawn around each cylinder, and each individual stepping into it is detected by at least two sensors that report that reading to the processor. All processors constantly exchange information about their readings and are built on an Arduino platform. Processing as programming language is used to synchronize the readings and to generate a pattern in which the sensors cast their rays as with 112 ultrasonic sensors operating at the same time, there would be a substantial risk of interference and acoustic shadow misreading. A detected person within the bubble of a cylinder triggers that cylinder to dynamically activate its affiliated instrument and provides visual feedback in the form of constant glow. Simultaneously, the software converts the audible track of that instrument into an equalizer-like light beam playing with the beat operating 132 LEDs per cylinder. Each cylinder has its dedicated power supply unit and converts the Arduino signal into 230 Volt.’
There are some grand questions raised in this article, but they are only questions: Merely self-reflection upon what-ifs, what may be, and, just as much, what may not be. How those questions are answered in the coming years will be a narrative created by the everyday user of the 3D printer, and the creative minds that use them to innovate, in the ways that only 3D printers can truly allow.
