The Experts below are selected from a list of 72 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Clément Canonne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Creating an Improvisation Device : an Inquiry into the Instrumental Practices of Contemporary Free Improvisers
2018Co-Authors: Clément CanonneAbstract:Improvisational practices are deeply linked to musical instruments. Indeed, by definition, to improvise is to create music with (or sometimes against) an instrument (including voice); in many ways, then, the act of improvisation is inseparable from the instrument onto which it is produced. As saxophonist Steve Lacy once said, “the instrument – that’s the matter – the stuff – your subject”(quoted in Bailey 1992): it plays a crucial role both in the improviser’s creative process over the course of the performance and in the construction of a singular artistic signature over her career. Arguably, this appropriation of the instrument that is consubstantial to improvisational practices is pushed even farther in the free improvisation scene, where it is not uncommon to meet with musicians who use their very own improvisation device – from custom-made instrumental preparations to the h(ij)acking of various electronic devices to the building from scratch of brand new instruments. Which processes underlie the creation of such musical devices dedicated to improvisational practices? What problems arise in their constitution? Which criteria do the improvisers use in selecting the various objects that make up their set? How do these custom-made instruments or devices allow them to address the specific constraints of free improvisation, and particularly of collective free improvisation? In order to answer these questions, I’ve interviewed 15 professional French improvisers (including pianists Ève Risser and Sophie Agnel, trombonist Thierry Madiot, tape- recorder-player Jérôme Noetinger, mixing-desk-player Arnaud Rivière, turntablist ErikM, guitarists Julien Desprez and Pascal Marzan, drummer Toma Gouband, “prepared chamber”-player Anton Mobin, “spat”-player Nicolas Chedmail, etc.), following each time the same protocol: I first video-taped them while performing a short improvisation with their instrument; I then asked them to watch the video and to comment out loud their musical and instrumental actions; finally, I asked them specific questions about their instrument, most notably regarding its evolutions over time. The many devices I’ve studied differ along six main dimensions: their degree of predictability; their degree of material diversity; their degree of autonomy; their degree of openness; their degree of immediacy; and their degree of functionalization. Indeed, in the creation of their device, musicians must deal with regulative objectives that often appear to be contradictory: the instrument must be controllable but it must also allow for some unpredictability; it must possess a large timbral range but it must also allow for quick reactivity; etc. Here, I will show how the different solutions that the musicians came up with to conciliate those regulative objectives reflect their conception of improvisation and the values that they ascribe to the practice of improvisation. Beyond a better understanding of the processes that underlie the creation of these improvisation devices, this presentation will also contribute to the material turn that has been recently promoted in musicology (De Souza 2017, Butler 2014), by shedding some light on the crucial role played by the material environment in the improvisers’ creative process: not only does the improviser’s instrument act as an “extended” mind (Clark and Chalmers 1998), a Cognitive Artefact carrying information that is exploited, manipulated and/or transformed as part of the improvisational process; it is also in itself an object of the improviser’s creativity – being progressively shaped and transformed under the improviser’s actions.
Canonne Clément - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Creating an Improvisation Device : an Inquiry into the Instrumental Practices of Contemporary Free Improvisers
HAL CCSD, 2018Co-Authors: Canonne ClémentAbstract:International audienceImprovisational practices are deeply linked to musical instruments. Indeed, by definition, to improvise is to create music with (or sometimes against) an instrument (including voice); in many ways, then, the act of improvisation is inseparable from the instrument onto which it is produced. As saxophonist Steve Lacy once said, “the instrument – that’s the matter – the stuff – your subject”(quoted in Bailey 1992): it plays a crucial role both in the improviser’s creative process over the course of the performance and in the construction of a singular artistic signature over her career.Arguably, this appropriation of the instrument that is consubstantial to improvisational practices is pushed even farther in the free improvisation scene, where it is not uncommon to meet with musicians who use their very own improvisation device – from custom-made instrumental preparations to the h(ij)acking of various electronic devices to the building from scratch of brand new instruments.Which processes underlie the creation of such musical devices dedicated to improvisational practices? What problems arise in their constitution? Which criteria do the improvisers use in selecting the various objects that make up their set? How do these custom-made instruments or devices allow them to address the specific constraints of free improvisation, and particularly of collective free improvisation?In order to answer these questions, I’ve interviewed 15 professional French improvisers (including pianists Ève Risser and Sophie Agnel, trombonist Thierry Madiot, tape- recorder-player Jérôme Noetinger, mixing-desk-player Arnaud Rivière, turntablist ErikM, guitarists Julien Desprez and Pascal Marzan, drummer Toma Gouband, “prepared chamber”-player Anton Mobin, “spat”-player Nicolas Chedmail, etc.), following each time the same protocol: I first video-taped them while performing a short improvisation with their instrument; I then asked them to watch the video and to comment out loud their musical and instrumental actions; finally, I asked them specific questions about their instrument, most notably regarding its evolutions over time.The many devices I’ve studied differ along six main dimensions: their degree of predictability; their degree of material diversity; their degree of autonomy; their degree of openness; their degree of immediacy; and their degree of functionalization. Indeed, in the creation of their device, musicians must deal with regulative objectives that often appear to be contradictory: the instrument must be controllable but it must also allow for some unpredictability; it must possess a large timbral range but it must also allow for quick reactivity; etc. Here, I will show how the different solutions that the musicians came up with to conciliate those regulative objectives reflect their conception of improvisation and the values that they ascribe to the practice of improvisation.Beyond a better understanding of the processes that underlie the creation of these improvisation devices, this presentation will also contribute to the material turn that has been recently promoted in musicology (De Souza 2017, Butler 2014), by shedding some light on the crucial role played by the material environment in the improvisers’ creative process: not only does the improviser’s instrument act as an “extended” mind (Clark and Chalmers 1998), a Cognitive Artefact carrying information that is exploited, manipulated and/or transformed as part of the improvisational process; it is also in itself an object of the improviser’s creativity – being progressively shaped and transformed under the improviser’s actions
Bert Bredeweg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
AIED - Knowledgeable feedback via a cast of virtual characters with different competences
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011Co-Authors: Wouter Beek, J. Liem, Floris Linnebank, René Bühling, Michael Wißner, Esther Lozano, Jorge Gracia Del Río, Bert BredewegAbstract:DynaLearn (http://www.DynaLearn.eu) develops a Cognitive Artefact that engages learners in an active learning by modelling process to develop conceptual system knowledge. Learners create external representations using diagrams. The diagrams capture conceptual knowledge using the Garp3 Qualitative Reasoning (QR) formalism [2]. The expressions can be simulated, confronting learners with the logical consequences thereof. To further aid learners, DynaLearn employs a sequence of knowledge representations (Learning Spaces, LS), with increasing complexity in terms of the modelling ingredients a learner can use [1]. An online repository contains QR models created by experts/teachers and learners. The server runs semantic services [4] to generate feedback at the request of learners via the workbench. The feedback is communicated to the learner via a set of virtual characters, each having its own competence [3]. A specific feedback thus incorporates three aspects: content, character appearance, and a didactic setting (e.g. Quiz mode). In the interactive event we will demonstrate the latest achievements of the DynaLearn project. First, the 6 learning spaces for learners to work with. Second, the generation of feedback relevant to the individual needs of a learner using Semantic Web technology. Third, the verbalization of the feedback via different animated virtual characters, notably: Basic help, Critic, Recommender, Quizmaster & Teachable agent.
Mark Dooner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cognitive Artefacts and conceptual design
IEE Colloquium on Design Systems with Users in Mind: The Role of Cognitive Artefacts, 1995Co-Authors: Guang Zhong, Mark DoonerAbstract:Conceptual design is a creative process which relies heavily on the designer's intelligence, ingenuity and knowledge of the application domain. Current techniques which support the process (e.g. geometrical modelling for mechanical engineering) are more suited for detail design and tend to constrain the engineer's natural creativity. Indeed, free hand sketching, as a means of expressing ideas quickly and easily, is still a preferred option but lacks information content. It is believed that potentially the Cognitive Artefact may overcome some of the limitations of sketching and provide more effective, objective, and intelligent support for engineers during conceptual design. The concept of Cognitive Artefact is described in the context of a prototype system that supports the conceptual design of mechanical fasteners. The approach taken to the prototype is to reproduce the qualities of free hand sketching, but include techniques which enrich the information content of the representations. The aim is to provide representations that on the one hand are responsive and meaningful, and on the other contain sufficient information to allow engineers to make formal assessment on the value of a proposed design.
Isabelle Chambost - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Analysts' consensus forecast: A social construct
2013Co-Authors: Isabelle ChambostAbstract:While it is often asserted that “the financial markets think…”, the markets, a chain or network with unclear boundaries, remain difficult to grasp as a reality. This fleeting view is nonetheless materialised in an eminently tangible way in stock market prices, and also through the “analyst consensus”. Intended primarily for investors, the consensus provides an overview of the opinions issued by securities analysts in the form of figures. This objective of this paper is to analyse how this representation in figures fulfils a role as a “Cognitive Artefact” for the analysts themselves, and is part of the “management tools”. The dialectic of these tools is underlined, as the creation of the consensus results from interactions between actors, who "model" it, each in their own way. But once rolled out, the consensus produces a representation in itself, presenting objectivised characteristics and disciplining behaviours. As an information instrument, a benchmark, a standard, these “management tools” lead the analyst to pay attention to ‘what the market thinks”, “why it thinks so”, and also “what the analyst himself should think”.
-
The consensus of security analysts: An institutionalized Cognitive Artefact
2010Co-Authors: Isabelle ChambostAbstract:While it is often asserted that “the financial markets think…”, the markets, a chain or network with unclear boundaries, remain difficult to grasp as a reality. This fleeting view is nonetheless materialised in an eminently tangible way in stock market prices, and also through the “analyst consensus”. Intended primarily for investors, the consensus provides an overview of the opinions issued by securities analysts in the form of figures. This objective of this paper is to analyse how this representation in figures fulfils a role as a “Cognitive Artefact” for the analysts themselves, and is part of an “economic agencement”. The dialectic of this tool is underlined, as the creation of the consensus results from interactions between actors, who "model" it, each in their own way. But once rolled out, the consensus produces a representation in itself, presenting objectivised characteristics and disciplining behaviours. As an information instrument, a benchmark, a standard, these “management tools” lead the analyst to pay attention to ‘what the market thinks”, “why it thinks so”, and also “what the analyst himself should think”.