Monthly Archives: March 2013


This is an impressive piece of work, especially considering it was a student piece and a collaboration. The exoskeleton of the box looked structurally sound so as not to unnerve people from entering the it. It look rough on the outside but was intentionally done, putting more emphasis on the inside of the piece. The door, which was a struggle in general ended up functioning very effectively, though I would have liked it to be more complementary to the rest outside. Using the drywall was successful in containing the sound even without sealing with calk. I enjoy the minimalism of the installation, only using materials that were necessary and served a purpose. I would have like for the projections to submerge the person more than it did, and the audio to have more dramatic crescendos and decrescendos and to be over all louder, maybe more speakers or more editing was needed. As an after thought I wish we would have let people write their thoughts on the outside of the box after they exited the experience. I think the combination of people’s thoughts plus our video recordings of them inside the experience would make a good reflection of the piece. Also writing our background/ abstract of the experience on the door would be a helpful giving contexts and aiding in the understanding the audio/video.


My sense of the success of the piece compared to the amount of time we pulled this piece together in makes me extremely proud. For me, the most significant aspect of this piece was working in collaboration. I loved seeing the way each of our visions for the piece came together. The struggle to articulate my intentions to fellow collaborators was one of the most significant practices for me; working in collaboration forces you to present your ideas in a more fleshed out and specific way. That said, the collaborative brainstorming process was exciting because it allowed for spontaneity and quick idea generation. I’ve found myself fascinated with the way we developed a sort of new vocabulary for talking about our piece as a result of needing to discuss ideas directly relating to our work, which would not necessarily need to be named if an artist was working alone in their head. I felt compelled to work hard on this project because I was accountable to other people and to the timeline of GUS. It was exciting to me to present at GUS because I am so used to making pieces which  are only seen by my classmates and professors. Knowing that this was being presented to a wider and different audience than I am used to changed the way I made decisions about the piece, though in retrospect I wish that we had thought a bit more about the physical location and constraints of the GUS space.


I came across an interesting definition of sound studies and thought I’d share it:

“The new discipline of ‘sound studies’ takes as its subject what might be called the sociology of sound- how styles of recorded music interact with social aspirations and the friction of economic classes, producing a map of music listening that has more to do with money and mass culture than with the way neurons trigger and ears organize.”

-Adam Gopnik in “Music To Your Ears,” published in the January 29, 2013 issue of the New Yorker on page 37

Here is a fascinating video of Daphne Oram and her Oramics from 1969.

As I was searching for a virtual version of the Oramics machine I found an Oramics app for the iPhone.

I also found a contraption called the DYSKOGRAPH which reminded me a lot of the Oramics machine. It has a turntable-like interface which you can draw on to create electronic sound loops.

Dissapointingly, I found that the device actually translates the marks into sound based on data collected through a videocamera pointed down at the turntable. The lack of actual (analog) translation of marks into noise, which Daphne Oram’s machine makes me so excited about, was a bit ruined when I discovered how the Dyskograph actually works.