[PD-announce] Nigredo, physically induced perceptual deprivation and the distinction of self
(sorry for x-post)
Dear all!
I'm happy to share with you Nigredo, a new work just created during a residency at STEIM, which might be of interest. made with Pd, Xth Sense, and Arduino, on a Linux system.
Video documentation and details at http://marcodonnarumma.com/works/nigredo/
"Nigredo is a private 8 minutes artwork to be experienced by one visitor at a time. Drawing from studies in analytical psychology, human sensory systems, and biotechnologies, the piece offers an intimate and uncanny experience of one’s internal self. Namely, the work investigates how perceptual deprivation can affect alterity, or otherness, that is the aware distinction between self and not-self.
The work uses ad hoc biophysical methods and wearable bioacoustic technology to stimulate a continuous sensorial feedback within the visitor’s own body. In a small, blacked out room a visitor sits alone facing a mirror, and wired to on-body sensors. The low frequency sound pulses of heart, muscular and vein tissues produced by the visitor’s body are captured, augmented, and fed back to the subject’s sensory system as new auditive, visual, and physical stimuli. Intense surround sound, pulsating lights, and mechanical vibrations are diffused through the subject's ears, eyes, bones, and skull... The combined skeletal resonance, sound stimuli, and light pulse produce a constant and intense stimulation field that alters the movement of the internal organs, and the behaviour of the optical nerves..."
feedback are most welcome!
best wishes,
-- Marco Donnarumma New Media + Sonic Arts Practitioner, Performer, Teacher, Director. Embodied Audio-Visual Interaction Research Team. Department of Computing, Goldsmiths University of London
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com
Research: http://res.marcodonnarumma.com
Director: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
_______________________________________________
Pd-announce mailing list
Pd-announce@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-announce
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Marco Donnarumma devel@thesaddj.comwrote:
(sorry for x-post)
Dear all!
I'm happy to share with you Nigredo, a new work just created during a residency at STEIM, which might be of interest. made with Pd, Xth Sense, and Arduino, on a Linux system.
Ha! I was wondering if it was Pd-powered! :D
Was a very interesting experience. Hope you liked my comments in the interview after ;)
cheers and hope to see more, drmr
Video documentation and details at http://marcodonnarumma.com/works/nigredo/
"Nigredo is a private 8 minutes artwork to be experienced by one visitor at a time. Drawing from studies in analytical psychology, human sensory systems, and biotechnologies, the piece offers an intimate and uncanny experience of one’s internal self. Namely, the work investigates how perceptual deprivation can affect alterity, or otherness, that is the aware distinction between self and not-self.
The work uses ad hoc biophysical methods and wearable bioacoustic technology to stimulate a continuous sensorial feedback within the visitor’s own body. In a small, blacked out room a visitor sits alone facing a mirror, and wired to on-body sensors. The low frequency sound pulses of heart, muscular and vein tissues produced by the visitor’s body are captured, augmented, and fed back to the subject’s sensory system as new auditive, visual, and physical stimuli. Intense surround sound, pulsating lights, and mechanical vibrations are diffused through the subject's ears, eyes, bones, and skull... The combined skeletal resonance, sound stimuli, and light pulse produce a constant and intense stimulation field that alters the movement of the internal organs, and the behaviour of the optical nerves..."
feedback are most welcome!
best wishes,
-- Marco Donnarumma New Media + Sonic Arts Practitioner, Performer, Teacher, Director. Embodied Audio-Visual Interaction Research Team. Department of Computing, Goldsmiths University of London
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com Research: http://res.marcodonnarumma.com Director: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net _______________________________________________ Pd-announce mailing list Pd-announce@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-announce _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi all, just two questions regarding Pd's messaging system. -When I suppres an object by using a find & cut set of messages to pd, I get a "consistency check" error. It is properly erased and nothing wrong seems to happen but, could this error be avoided? Could it be eventually dangerous?
-When I instantiate dynamically an abstraction (not a pd native object, but an abstraction), it does not receive a proper loadbang message. And I should have a way to initialize dynamically created abstractions, taking into account that I instantiate several of them and initialization should be performed indiviually.
Any hints welcome! Josep M
Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But that's not vanilla. Concerning the error, it might happen cause Pd is not built for dynamic patching (even though some of us love it..), so you might be getting errors that have no impact on your process, never mind them. There could be a way to avoid this but I'm ignorant of it.. Give Enrique Erne's pd-dom a try, it's a great wrapper of Pd' dynamic patching capabilities.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jeppi Jeppi jeppiot@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all, just two questions regarding Pd's messaging system. -When I suppres an object by using a find & cut set of messages to pd, I get a "consistency check" error. It is properly erased and nothing wrong seems to happen but, could this error be avoided? Could it be eventually dangerous?
-When I instantiate dynamically an abstraction (not a pd native object, but an abstraction), it does not receive a proper loadbang message. And I should have a way to initialize dynamically created abstractions, taking into account that I instantiate several of them and initialization should be performed indiviually.
Any hints welcome! Josep M
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But that's not vanilla.
There are two separate issues to be considered:
[initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the parent are drawn.
I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a 'loadbang' message to their canvasses.
Roman
Many thanks to you all, [initbang] seems just what I was looking for. As for individual, dynamic firing with [loadbang], the problem with
[loadbang( | [send pd-foo.pd]
is that I have several foo abstractions and I would like to fire them individually. So, by now [initbang] seems the way to go. Josep M
From: reduzent@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:25:35 +0100 Subject: Re: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching
On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But that's not vanilla.
There are two separate issues to be considered:
[initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the parent are drawn.
I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a 'loadbang' message to their canvasses.
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 17:20 +0100, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
Many thanks to you all, [initbang] seems just what I was looking for. As for individual, dynamic firing with [loadbang], the problem with
[loadbang( | [send pd-foo.pd]
is that I have several foo abstractions and I would like to fire them individually. So, by now [initbang] seems the way to go.
Also this would be possible with [loadbang] since you could give each instance a different canvas name with [namecanvas] and send the 'loadbang' message to every canvas separately.
The only advantage of this is its compatibility with vanilla. [initbang] is still a lot easier to use, generally.
Roman
If you need to stick to vanilla Pure Data you could try https://github.com/eerne/Pd-Dom which handles DSP tree update and loadbang for you as well as mass chaining of many abstractions.
[set 0 rythm(
|
| [chain sound sound sound(
| /
[pd-dom id]
|
[adc~]
(hope my ascii art just works)
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching
On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But that's not vanilla.
There are two separate issues to be considered:
[initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the parent are drawn.
I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a 'loadbang' message to their canvasses.
And in most instances it's much easier to just use [initbang] to initialize the abstraction in the way the user expects it to happen. Unless the abstraction initialization is sending a message to an outlet there is no need to manually send loadbangs. [initbang] will do the right thing here.
-Jonathan
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 10:40 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching
On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But that's not vanilla.
There are two separate issues to be considered:
[initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the parent are drawn.
I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a 'loadbang' message to their canvasses.
And in most instances it's much easier to just use [initbang] to initialize the abstraction in the way the user expects it to happen. Unless the abstraction initialization is sending a message to an outlet there is no need to manually send loadbangs.
Good point.
[initbang] will do the right thing here.
Yeah, though it is possible to do it with [loadbang], it is cumbersome and much easier with [initbang] ( and I'd put it relatively high on the please-add-it-to-vanilla list).
Roman
From: Jeppi Jeppi jeppiot@hotmail.com To: "pd-list@iem.at" pd-list@iem.at Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:21 AM Subject: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching
Hi all, just two questions regarding Pd's messaging system. -When I suppres an object by using a find & cut set of messages to pd, I get a "consistency check" error. It is properly erased and nothing wrong seems to happen but, could this error be avoided? Could it be eventually dangerous?
-When I instantiate dynamically an abstraction (not a pd native object, but an abstraction), it does not receive a proper loadbang message. And I should have a way to initialize dynamically created abstractions, taking into account that I instantiate several of them and initialization should be performed indiviually.
If you are using Pd-extended or Pd-l2ork and your abstractions aren't trying to immediately loadbang a message to an outlet when they instantiate, just use [initbang] and it will work, regardless of whether you are creating all or your abstractions in zero logical time or sporadically at various times.
Unfortunately [initbang] does not exist in Pd-Vanilla, and there is no process to get it into Pd-Vanilla. If you are dynamically creating all your abstractions in one go, you can manually send a loadbang to your abstractions once you've created them. If your abstraction is [foo] then do this:
[loadbang( | [send pd-foo.pd]
That will trigger all the [loadbang] objects inside all the [foo] abstractions that exist in the current Pd instance.
If you are dynamically instantiating your abstractions sporadically, and you want to make sure you're only sending loadbangs to abstractions that haven't fired one yet (or you want to confine the whole process to the scope of a canvas and its children, rather than global scope) just use [initbang]. If you really must do it without [initbang] check the archives for solutions, but do pay attention to how much more knowledge and time those solutions require than simply instantiating a single [initbang].
-Jonathan
Any hints welcome! Josep M _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2013-03-23 14:21, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
-When I instantiate dynamically an abstraction (not a pd native object, but an abstraction), it does not receive a proper loadbang message. And I should have a way to initialize dynamically created abstractions, taking into account that I instantiate several of them and initialization should be performed indiviually.
since nobody mentioned it, here's an other solution:
- create your abstractions with a unique ID as an argument: [foo abs72]
- inside the abstraction, use the unique ID to construct a unique
[send]-name: [r $1-init]
- at the end of your dynamic instantiation, you send a bang to the
matching receiver: [; abs72-init bang(
after all, when using dynamic patching, you are already manually doing a lot of stuff Pd usually takes care of. sending a proper init-message (via a canvas-local loadbang or as described above) is just the icing on the cake.
fgmasdr IOhannes
-
Alexandros Drymonitis -
dreamer -
Enrique Erne -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Jeppi Jeppi -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Marco Donnarumma -
Roman Haefeli