test three

The interaction in test two was mainly given by the performer. The participant is only able to react through bodylanguage and after the situation has played out. What happens if the attributes that have been found in this test would be turned around? A lot of input but little output?


Together with Stephan Kirschbaum (student MA NAIP, Prins Claus Conservatorium, Groningen, NL) and Danja (Student MA MADtech, FMI, Groningen, NL) I developed an instrument based on a youtube trend. We saw that there was a hype to build PVC pipe instruments, called a Tubulum, as seen in the Blue Man Group performances. All of these instruments had a certain form and function. To play a certain existing song on a low budget, DIY semi percussional semi melodic instrument. Exciting right?

What we tried to achieve was to create a circular system that could be played with up to 20 persons at the same time. Here, the massa created sound that could not sound wrong. As long as the participients would join a common rythm (which they do automatically) the feeling of creating took over. As an addition we added a visual animation that reacted to the sound created in the room. Also we sampled the sound and streamed it into another room, in order to make the interaction tangible across the whole building. A signal of human presence leaving augmented marks.


a) Instrumentalisation

b) Development of an idea

c) test-one

d) test-two

e) test-three

f) test-3.1