skip to main content
10.1145/3527927.3531198acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Sonic Coexistence

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

By allowing participants to co-construct geolocated Venetian soundscapes through interactive, sonified objects, this artwork re-imagines how humans can coexist in post-pandemic public spaces.

References

  1. Marije A. J. Baalman. 2003. The STRIMIDILATOR: A String Controlled MIDI-Instrument. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. 19–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Marije A. J. Baalman. 2010. Spatial Composition Techniques and Sound Spatialisation Technologies. Organised Sound 15, 3 (dec 2010), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771810000245Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Marije A. J. Baalman. 2013. Making interactive media environments relevant to the participating visitor. Metabody - Journal of Metacultural Critique 1, Multiplicities in motion. Open Source Bodies-Spaces (2013), 66–69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Georgina Born (Ed.). 2013. Music, Sound and Space: Transformations of Public and Private Experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511675850Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anders Eskildsen and Mads Walther-Hansen. 2020. Force dynamics as a design framework for mid-air musical interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. 361–366. https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2020/nime2020_paper70.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Valérian Fraisse, Marcelo M. Wanderley, and Catherine Guastavino. 2021. Comprehensive Framework for Describing Interactive Sound Installations: Highlighting Trends through a Systematic Review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Anca-Simona Horvath and Viola Rühse. 2020. The Chladni Wall. In Communications in Computer and Information Science(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1294), Stephanidis Constantine, Antona Margherita, and Ntoa Stavroula (Eds.). Springer, Germany, 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60703-6_50 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2020 : HCI International 2020, HCII2020 ; Conference date: 19-07-2020 Through 24-07-2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Anca-Simona Horvath, Viola Rühse, and Dimitrios Raptis. 2020. SoundSculpt: A Design Framework for 3D Modelling and Digitally Fabricating Sound Patterns. In OzCHI 2020. Association for Computing Machinery, United States, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441017 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, OzCHI ’20 ; Conference date: 02-12-2020 Through 04-12-2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tim Ingold. 2009. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 1 (07 2009), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep042 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-pdf/34/1/91/4746308/bep042.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacek Lewkowicz, Michał Woźniak, and Michał Wrzesiński. 2022. COVID-19 and erosion of democracy. Economic Modelling 106(2022), 105682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105682Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Noam Lupu and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2021. The early COVID-19 pandemic and democratic attitudes. PLOS ONE 16, 6 (06 2021), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253485Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Antonio Marazzi. 2019. Aural Anthropology, a Way of Listening. Visual Anthropology 32, 2 (2019), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2019.1603037 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2019.1603037Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Julia Kursell Pnina Avidar, Raviv Ganchrow. 2008. Editorial. Immersed. Sound and Architecture. Oase 78(2008), 2–7. https://www.oasejournal.nl/en/Issues/78/EditorialGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtis Roads. 2002. Microsound. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Brigitte Robindoré. 1996. Eskhaté ereuna: Extending the limits of musical thought-comments on and by Iannis Xenakis. Computer Music Journal 20, 4 (1996), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3680410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Murray Schafer. 1977. The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Destiny Books, Rochester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Silvin Willemsen, Anca-Simona Horvath, and Mauro Nascimben. 2020. DigiDrum: A Haptic-based Virtual Reality Musical Instrument and a Case Study. In Proceedings of the 17th Sound and Music Computing Conference(Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing Conference), Simone Spagnol and Andrea Valle (Eds.). Axea sas/SMC Network, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4228322 17th Sound and Music Computing Conference, SMC 2020 ; Conference date: 24-06-2020 Through 26-06-2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    C&C '22: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition
    June 2022
    710 pages
    ISBN:9781450393270
    DOI:10.1145/3527927

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 June 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format