Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Norimichi HIRAKAWA

Posted: October 14, 2011 by younu84 in Uncategorized


HIRAKAWA Norimichi was born in 1982. He creates works with computer programming and real-time processing, focusing mainly on image/sound installations. Using intuitive interfaces and interactive expressions he creates works that enable viewers to experience on macroscopic scale events that are ordinarily difficult to perceive. These works encourage people to reinterpret the everyday affairs through new senses, stimulating observers’ imaginations as a device that enables people to rediscover the world.

He mainly uses audio and video. Also he uses many other kinds of media depends on the work, on his motive, such as both three-dimensional objects and photographs.

He’s recent work contains more logical elements. Since he major in college was a media art, it was natural for him to be theoretical. He believes that without being theoretical programs won’t run. So it’s important to be a bit logical in that respect.

He enjoys brainstorming part of production phase the most that he would like to produce. And he also enjoys when the work is nearly finished. According to him, it’s almost like a mount climbing. People get excited when they getting to the top.
And talk about how he approaches producing his work, he doesn’t think he’s a programmer so he doesn’t posses the spark for programming. Yet, he’s passionate about setting the theme. He initiates his work in the theme, at the point of initiation; he considers which media is best to fit the approach of the theme and how to marry a work plan that is feasible to it.



On his exhibition, he introduced two installation art pieces and photographs.

The first installation artwork was for the audience to observe the computer, which simulated gravity.  This simulator showed coordinate value and 3D plotting on the monitor.  There was also a video camera, which recorded the image on the monitor to create an atmosphere as if the audience became a part of the simulator.

The second installation artwork was to visualize the sound of a computer calculating.  To visualize sound, sound sample of a computer fan and hard disk were collected.  After all the data had been processed, it was projected on 8:3 wide screens.  In addition, there were noise effects when the data was projected on the screen and these noise effects were generating irreproducible images on the spot.

The work of photography was about the universe.  Photos of fixed stars that were shot in two different methods were displayed.  One method was using photographs of the observable universe, which is based on billions of years worth of calculation.  The other ones were one dot computer generated photographs that were calculated in a few second by the computer.  The resolutions of both types of photos were adjusted so that it was hard to recognize what was being seen by the naked eye.

“Real time” was the key theme for this exhibition.  He wanted to create a space where an audience could be able to feel the moment of the work.  He wanted to help them imagine the phenomenon.

He also wanted this exhibition to be as a place where he can reexamine or reunite my expression method.


Reaction to the exhibition and how he communicated with the audience

There was a wide range of people, from young children to the elderly, who came to view the exhibition.  He felt that the work was a bit complicated for the audience to fully absorb though.  Even for the people who are familiar with these kinds of topics had found it hard to fully understand.
Most of the audience was able to feel the works intuitively.  After observing the mass dots, which were geometrically arranged, an eighty year old female doctor said that she saw a “Life” through this work.  Even one child stated that he felt the “Universe” when he saw the machinery that was painted in black.  Those comments made an immense and permanent impression on him.

Finding the better approach of communication through work is a very difficult process. Of course it must depend on the quality of the work and he thinks that since computer has an interactivity element, the creator can program a physical reaction. When the audience views this prepared reaction, they tend to stop thinking or imagining past the prepared reaction.

At this exhibition, he prepared installation artwork that didn’t involve an interaction element.  He created a closed space where the audience was allowed to only observe.  The creator only prepares spices, and these spices triggers the audience’s imagination.  As long as there is a space for the audience to think or imagine, it is not always necessary to understand the whole meaning behind the work.  This is one way of communicating with the audience.


Creating visuals with programming geek

Because these are art pieces, it is important to include attractive visuals for an audience.  By capturing their attention by visuals, it generates enough time for the audience to think and imagine.  He started as an amateur programmer, so he often approaches the visual creating first, instead of the programming.  Perhaps his peculiar process has an effect on his visual making skill.




It is an algorithmic installation art.  It will capture the audience’s movements by using algorithmic technology and it will hyper link endlessly. The audience will become one of the parameters and will wonder around in the cyberspace.  The objective of this project is to exhibit structure of the Internet and the vast information that is involved in the system.  It is a complete nonlinear system that eliminates the audience’s control over to browse through contents.  There are various versions in exists now but the most recent version is called a “version –1” and that is not an interactive version.




It was reconstructed by computer programming based on an accumulation data of GPS log data. The project was made from images and sound that were recorded by a fish-eye lens camera and microphones that were installed on the roof and around a car. Then recorded a collection of sound and imagery of major landmarks and cities that were synchronized with the non-virtual world by computer and then was projected onto a screen.  As opposed to the previous work, “Global Bearing”, which took on a sphere shape in order to resemble the earth, this work was presented as a horizontal image.  He wanted the audience to visualize the image as if it was stretching out to the world horizontally.



a circular structure for the internal observer

A computer-generated image projected onto the wall is transformed by sounds generated by the computer that originally drew it. That is to say, the image changes in accordance with how actively the computer is operating. The work is structured so that when the image transforms, a load is placed on the computer, causing the sound of the drive to change, which in turn impacts the generated image again.

Just as holding a microphone to the speaker to which the microphone is attached causes howling, in systems where there is an output for every input, the action of inputting the output back into the system is called “feedback.” This work has a circular structure in which the sounds generated by the computer are input as parameters and images generated in real time. Once the system is started up, it continues generating images and sounds in a closed system, but because outputting the noise of the computer through the speakers means that noise is constantly being input into the system, it is said to be impossible for this system to generate exactly the same image twice. Internal observation refers to observing an observed object not from the outside but from the inside of the system, and in this work the transformation of the projected images is also impacted by the degree of noise in the exhibition space as visitors move through.



1982, Born in Shimane-ken,JP.
2005, graduated Information Design Department of Tama Art Univ.
2007, completed graduate school of Tama Art Univ.
He reconstructs universal and underlying phenomenon in sensory level of audience and releases as installations.
His work centers around not only device design or algorithm design which enables analog input for digital system, but also AV programing and spacial design.
He does the total implementation of artworks.


Exellence Prize : Art Division @ Japan Media Art Festival 2004 [8th]. ( GLOBAL BEARING )
Grand Prize : interactive category @ SFC Digital Art Awards 2004. ( GLOBAL BEARING )
Grand Prize : interactive category @ 10th Student’s CG Contest. ( GLOBAL BEARING )
Awards for Exellence : interactive art @ Asia Digital Art Award 2005. ( GLOBAL BEARING )
Exellence Prize : interactive category @ 11th Student’s CG Contest. ( DriftNet )
Jury Recommended Works : Art Division @ Japan Media Art Festival 2005 [9th]. ( DriftNet )
Grand Prize : interactive category @ SFC Digital Art Awards 2006. ( DriftNet )
Finalist Prizes : interactive art @ Asia Digital Art Award 2006. ( DriftNet )
Award of Distinction : interactive art @ Prix Ars Electronica 2008. ( a playting for the great observers at rest )


2003 :
Frontiers of Communication @ NTT ICC , Tokyo JP.

2004 :
installed sences @ old-Mikawadai Junior High., Tokyo JP.
Exhibition ” Ex- ” @ Media Center / Tama Art Univ., Tokyo JP.

2005 :
Japan Media Art Festival 2004 @ Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, Tokyo JP.
DESIGN X ART (Graduation Works Exhibition) @ YOKOHAMA AKARENGA, Yokohama JP.
Where am I ? @ Miraikan, Tokyo JP.
The Exploration of Time @ YCAM, Yamaguchi JP.
Japan-Korea cultual exchange exhibition @ COEX Pacific Hall No.4, Seoul KR.
Shizuoka Contents Valley Festival @ Old-Fuji Bank Building, Shizuoka JP.

2006 :
transNonFiction @ BankART Studio NYK, Yokohama JP.
Japan Media Art Festival 2005 @ Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, Tokyo JP.
The Art of Passat-ism @ Marunouchi oazo, Tokyo JP.
Yokohama EIZONE @ BankART1929 Yokohama, Yokohama JP.
ZeroOne San Jose: A Global Festival of Art on the Edge / ISEA2006 @ San Jose, CA, US.
Re:search @ Sendai mediatheque,Sendai JP.

2007 :
Power of Expression, JAPAN @ NATIONAL ART CENTER, TOKYO, Roppongi JP.
AUTAMATICA @ BankART Studio NYK,Yokohama JP.
Invisible Garden (Art Installation for LEXUS @ MILANO DESIGN WEEK 2007) @ via savona 35,Milano IT.
scopic measure #04 @ YCAM, Yamaguchi JP.
Japan Media Art Festival in Shanghai @ Shanghai Sculpture Space, Shangai CN.

2008 :
transmediale.08 @ The House of World Culture, Berlin, DE.
LandmarkProject III @ BankART Studio NYK,Yokohama JP.
CyberArts2008 @ OK Center, Linz AT.
Digital Art Festival, Taipei @ Museum Of Contemporary Art, Taipei TW.
Solo Exhibition: observers @ Iwami Art Museum, Shimane, JP.

2009 :
measuring ice @ Koriyama City Museum, Koriyama, JP.
I mondi di Galileo @ San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice IT.
Festival della Scienza 2009 @ Palazzo della Borsa, Genova, IT.
Digital Art Festival, Taipei 2009 @ Museum Of Contemporary Art, Taipei TW.

2010 :
Solo Exhibition: Global Bearing in Irreverisible @ Kapelica Gallery, Ljubljana SI.
log/score – measuring ice @ MONKEY GALLERY, Tokyo, JP.
Japan Media Art Festival Istanbul @ Pera Museum, Istanbul TR.


A circular structure for the internal observer [installation 2008] []

DriftNet interactive [installation 2005] []

APMT5 []

A playing for the great observers at rest [installation 2007] []

DriftNet Ver1 []

Global bearing, 2005 []

Compath, 2006  []

A playing for the great observers at rest  []



COUNTERAKTIV, viewed 27 August 2011,,,

ALICEONNET, viewed 5 September 2011,

DESIGN YOUR DREAM, viewed 5 September 2011,

ICC ONLINE, viewed 25 August 2011,

NORIMICHI HIRAKAWA, viewed 2 September,

HITSPAPER, viewed 3 September 2011,

MOTIONDJ, viewed 1 September 2011,


Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir by Ruth Ostrow

Posted: October 6, 2011 by utsassignments in 2011, Uncategorized

“We are strangers that have come together to meet a common goal and have done so from the comfort of living and dorm, and even bathrooms, stretched out from sea to sea to sea.”

Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir

“For anyone who wants to believe in the possibilities of a connected world, here is your anthem” Chris Anderson, TED Talk Curator

 “You probably haven’t seen anything quite like it before.  It’s stunning”  Mashabal [6]


Eric Whitacre

Eric Whitacre wanted to be a pop star. “I dreamed of it, and that’s all I dreamed of.”  This was in the late 80s growing up in this little farming town in northern Nevada.

At university, with no pop star mentors in sight, he reluctantly joined the geeks in the choir only due to rumours of cute girls. He was sitting at his first choral get-together, bored stupid. when suddenly the conductor gave the downbeat and they launched into the Kyrie from the “Requiem” by Mozart.

“In my entire life I had seen in black and white, and suddenly everything was in shocking Technicolor. The most transformative experience I’ve ever had — in that single moment, hearing dissonance and harmony and people singing, people together, the shared vision. And I felt for the first time in my life that I was part of something bigger than myself!” he told a packed audience at Ted Talks [1]

The story that followed was that of a man who had found his calling. He was driven to then do a Master’s degree at Juilliard. And went on become one of the most famous and popular classical composers and conductors in the world today, with recent commissions including works for the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus the Philharmonic Orchestra, and a Visiting Fellow and Composer in Residence at Cambridge University. [9]

Already at the pinnacle of a brilliant career, life changed for him dramatically one day. A friend emailed him a link to a YouTube video. It was a young woman who had posted a fan video singing the soprano line to his piece called “Sleep.”

“Hi Mr. Eric Whitacre. My name is Britlin Losee, and this is a video that I’d like to make for you. Here’s me singing “Sleep.” I’m a little nervous, just to let you know. ♫ If there are noises ♫ ♫ in the night ♫

He was “thunderstruck”. He says: “I had this idea. If I could get 50 people to all do this same thing, sing their parts — soprano, alto, tenor and bass — wherever they were in the world, post their videos to YouTube, we could cut it all together and create a virtual choir.  Whitacre used social media — his blog, a Facebook page and YouTube — to assemble and audition singers for his piece. He sent the sheet music out so people could submit videos featuring them singing individual parts. He chose a work he’d written in in 2000 called “Lux Aurumque”, [11] which means “light and gold.”

And during the process a fan emerged, Scott Haines, who volunteered to sift through the videos, and edit the audio parts together to form a professional-sounding choir.

Out of this Eric created the first Virtual Choir in 2010, which saw 185 singers from 12 different countries record and post on YouTube the soprano, alto, tenor, and bass parts. The video shows a large stage with faces on computer screens next to and underneath each other, all along the podium; and him conducting the virtual singers. There are close ups of different people staring, uninhibited, into the camera as they sing blissfully in their private domain. Which is magically transformed into a public domain. It touched people’s hearts and yearnings for connection with strangers – something that is now possible through the new social mediums. The video went viral and received over 1 million hits in the first two months of its release.



The reason Whitacre had become a classic choir conductor was, he says, the love of the interactivity. He loved the interaction of people coming together but also the interaction of sounds: the cacophony which can fill a spacial zone with harmonics and discordance [2]. This is why he was so drawn to choral music.

So what does choir mean? Historically it’s a body of singers who perform together as a group led by a conductor or choirmaster. Most often choirs consist of four sections intended to sing in four part harmony, but there’s no limit to the number of possible parts such as a classic 40-part motet entitled Spem in alium, for eight choirs of five parts each; and now Eric Whitacer’s phenomenal 2000 voices using the power of numbers to capitalise on harmonics and discordance.

The most common form of choir brings together the voices of men and women singing soprano, alto, tenor and bass SATB. The choir can sing without accompaniment i.e. Acapella or with instrument [4] There are all sorts of choirs – such as church choirs and performance choirs [5]. My favourite is Gospel choir music. I was recently lucky enough to be invited into a Baptist gospel church in New Orleans and witnessed 1000 people singing in ecstasy whilst dancing in rhythm. Gospel choir singing formed the basis of R&B and Soul which why it’s so close to my heart.

Choir dates back to Greek times, but the earliest notated music of western Europe is Gregorian Chant. During the Renaissance, sacred choral music was the principal type of formally-notated music in Western Europe [3]. Choir remained popular over the centuries but choral music underwent a period of great change and experimentation during the 20th Century with the arrival of atonality and other non-traditional harmonic systems and techniques as represented in the works of Arnold Schoenberg [10] who changed things forever

At the end of the 20th century singer Bob Geldof made choir popularist when he gathered famous singers to sing Feed the Worldin a choral format. And the 21 century has already brought many new and exciting trends in choir because of remixing and sampling. Multi-cultural influences are found Golijov’s St. Mark Passion, which melds the Bach-style passion form with Latin American street music. [4] And now introducing a totally new form of choir by Whitacre – utilising new technology and new media to create the joy and togetherness and interactivity that only the digital era can bring.


But choir is not the only influence on Eric Whitacre’s work. There was one who trod before him. Not in the same way. But nevertheless utilizing social mediums like YouTube to create an original composition.

You can’t even begin to imagine how awesome this is. Nothing I can write here will do it justice. Mashable [7]

In 2009 Israeli musician, Kutiman, ( [8] took hundreds of YouTube samples – often non-musical ones – and turned them into an album that Mashable described as “So awesome on so many levels that it left reviewers stunned…it’s amazing to see all those unrelated YouTube bits and pieces fit together so perfectly.”[7]

Watching Kutiman’s work is uplifting. In a nutshell he has taken the best pieces –chords, voices, jam sessions, from YouTube-posted performances by the likes of Miles Davis; Jimi Hendrix to any Joe Blow sitting at home banging out a song. Kutiman, whose self-titled debut received high praise from sites such as Pitchfork Magazine, proves that any sound can be music if you know what to do with it.

Says Mashable

Welcome to the future of music.

But Kutiman never recorded original material himself… and so back to the extraordinary story of Eric Whitacre and where the story is now.


On receiving his final cut of his first virtual hit Eric was moved to tears by the poetry of  “These souls all on their own desert island, sending electronic messages in bottles to each other.” And decided to do it all over again bigger and better. So back on to social media he went.

His blog:

Here we go, gang. For the next version of the Virtual Choir we will sing Sleep, and this time around, we’re shooting for the Guinness title of “world’s largest internet choir.” All of you are invited. Any age is welcome.

Please visit the official YouTube page to see the instruction videos and the conductor track, and visit the Virtual Choir page to download the sheet music.

Let’s make history!

The final tally was 2,051 videos from 58 different countries. From Malta, Madagascar, Thailand, Vietnam, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, as far north as Alaska and as far south as New Zealand. Again the video was a massive hit, around the world. The visuals are simply magnificent. Eric in the middle of a vast universe of stars conducts his choirs. The choir consists of individual YouTube videos, superimposed on planets, and all planets are tied to each other with golden threads. It has to be seen and listened to with the volume up high to appreciate what has been achieved. Enough to get him the only ever full-standing ovation at prestigious Ted Talks.

Utilising social media, he and his team posted a page on Facebook for the singers to upload their testimonials, what it was like for them, their experience singing it. One woman summed it up

“It is a dream come true to be part of this choir, as I’ve never been part of one. When I placed a marker on the Google Earth Map, I had to go with the nearest city, which is about 400 miles away from where I live. As I am in the Great Alaskan Bush, satellite is my connection to the world.”[9]

This quote captures in a few words the incredible power of digital media!


  1. Eric Whitacre, Ted Talks 2011, April 2011, accessed, 19 Aug 2011, <;
  2. Daugherty, J. Spacing, Formation, and Choral Sound: Preferences and Perceptions of Auditors and Choristers. Journal of Research in Music Education. Vol. 47, Num. 3. 1999.
  3. Joseph Jordania. 2011. Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution. Logos
  4. Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911) Choir, Encyclopedia Britannica  (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911) Chorus, Encyclopedia Britannica(11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  6. Samuel Axon, March 24, 2010, Eric Whitacre Virtual Choir, Mashable, accessed 20 Sept 2011,
  7. March 11, 2009 Music for the YouTube Generation, accessed 23 Sept 2011, <;
  8. Kutiman, 2009, Thru-You, accessed, 16 Sept 2011,
  9. Eric Whitacre, Virtual Choir, accessed, 23 Sept 2011, <;
  10. Library Think Quest Organisation, accessed, 24 Sept 2011, <;
  11. Phillip Cooke, Lux Aurumque, accessed, 24 Sept 2011,
  12. Supportive reading
  13. Essential Musicianship Series: Essential Elements Choir from Emily Crocker, & John Leavitt, (eds) 2011, Oxford Press, England.
  14. Voice Cast: The Distribution of the Voice via Podcast  from Neumark, N. Gibson, R. & Van Leeuwen, T. (eds), 2010, Vocal Aesthetics in Digital Arts and Media, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  15. Quantum Improvisation from Miller, P. 2008, Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture, MIT Press, Cambridge MA
  16. New media & new technologies; from Lister, M. 2003. New Media: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London.

Sound and Music of Bollywood

Posted: October 4, 2011 by ishqland in Uncategorized

Sound and Music of Bollywood


Mohammad Asheq Maleque, 10924355

Like everywhere in world cinema, sound in Indian cinema, has always played a great role. Though everything associated with sound in Indian cinema, almost always has been equated with music and song but music and song form an integral part of Indian cinema, there is no reason to ignore the contribution of silence along with speech, voice­over, interior monologue, noise.

History of sound in Bollywood Cinema:

In the year 1913, the silent film Raja Harishchandra , was the first-ever Indian feature film. It was produced by Dadasaheb Phalke. The early 1920s Bollywood saw the rise of several new production companies. Most films made during this era were obviously silent. And most films during this era were either mythological or historical in nature. This era was dominated by filmed versions of episodes from Hindu Religious classics such as The Ramayana and The mahabharata. During the late 1920s, the number of productions companies began to skyrocket, as did the number of films being produced each year—from 108 in 1927, to 328 in 1931[i]

  ALAM ARA , first Idian Talkies

 Ardeshir M Irani, Bollywood cinema’s first Sound Mogul, who started out in his family’s musical instruments business, launched his production company the Imperial Film Company In 1926 and built a studio for it. By 1931 this company won the sound race among Bombay producers and Bollywood saw the release of Alam Ara, the first talkie, and the film that paved the way for the future of Indian cinema. Though Alam Ara has never been described as an artistic triumph but its impact was astonishing. Tickets disappeared into the black market and police was called for control the crowds. That same year, 22 other Hindi films appeared, and all seem to have made money. Also, in 1931, three films in Bengali, one in Tamil, one in Telugu, appeared in their respective language areas. 1932 saw eight films in Marathi, two in Gujarati. In 1933, 75 Hindi features. [ii]

Alam Ara included about a dozen songs. Another early Hindi film, Indrasabha, had about around 59 songs. Shirin Farhad had 42 songs. An early Tamil film had over 60 songs. All the sound films produced in India in these early years had a profusion of songs. Most also had dances. Advertisements described some of these films as “all talking, all singing, all dancing” features. The Indian sound film, unlike the sound film of any other land, had from its first moment, seized exclusively on music-­drama forms.

The First Sound in Bollywood Cinemas: 

In India, the earliest demonstration of what was known as ‘Phonofilm’ a process invented by Dr.Lee DeForest, in which sound was synchronised with the picture. The Royal Opera House in Mumbai brought the first Phonofilm in India, in May 1927.

The earliest attempts at synchronised sound film production in India were made by Madan Theatres. Early in 1929, Madan Theatres exhibited the first talking picture in India, Universal’s Melody of Love at the Elphinstone Picture Palace in Kolkata. This was the first theatre in the East to be equipped with permanent sound apparatus. This film was also shown at the Excelsior Theatre in Mumbai. By the end of 1930, more than 30 out of a total of 370 theatres in the country were technically ready for sound projections of film.

Within three weeks of Alani Ara, Madan Theatres released its first Bengali takie, Jamai Shashthi. This was followed with the release of Shinn Farhad in Hindi, also from the Madan’s production house. This film beat Alam Ara’s record at the box office. Three reasons given for its thumping success are : (a) the dialogue by Aga Hashar Kashmiri, (b) the songs sung by Kajan and Nissar and (c) the crystal clear recording done on the RCA Photophone. The recording for this film was done on Double System Sound by foreign technicians. Madan Theatres turned out eight sound films in 1931 and 16 in 1932.

The Sound Technique in Bollywood:

The introduction of sound changed the entire style of production and projection of motion pictures. It also led to the growth and adaptation of new equipment, and the creation of a hitherto unknown creative and technical vocation ­ sound engineering. The first response to sound in cinema was to clarity of speech and song.

Technically speaking, during the earliest days of sound in Indian cinema, the Audio Carnex was the most popular among the sound recording machines used for filming sound. Around 1935, about 25 such machines were in use. Second in priority ranking was the Fildelytone, with 20 machines in operation. B.A.F. was in use in four studios. Other recording machines in use were ­ Rico, Vinten, Visa tone, R.C.A., Balsley and Phillips, Blue Seal, Adair Jenkins and Fearless. [iii]

Sound technology in the country has shifted from optical to magnetic quite some time ago. Today, optical IS used only in the final stage of film­making. Magnetic technology offers greater range in sound than the mono­ optical system. New technology has made the hierarchy of sounds more complex, more exciting. Innovative sound designers have done a lot of experimenting with sound such as processing sound effects, sampling sound effects, taking real ­life sound and arranging them in a certain way.

Legends of Sound in Bollywood:

The film director of Alam Ara, Adershir Irani, himself chose the lyrics and the tunes. For recording the songs, just a harmonium and a tabla were used out of the camera range and the singer sang into a hidden microphone started the history of using sound in Bollywood cinemas. With the advent of the Talkie Film, the Hindi film song gave birth to a whole new song writing and music composing industry. Each of the major film studios had their own Music Directors. Who have broken several records at the box office with their stupendously successful films has worked out a strange blend of music and song to organise the entire sound design of their films.

Rai Chand  joined the Indian Broadcusting Company in 1927.  In 1935 he introduced playback singing for the first time in the Hindi feature film Dhoop Chhaon. He is complemented by Anil Biswas as the father of Indian Cinema Music. He had directed music of 150 films including hindi and bangali films. He received the most prestigious award Dadasaheb Phalke award in 1978 for his contribution in indian cinema and music. [iv]

Anil Biswas was a famous Indian film music composer  from 1935 to 1965, who apart from being one of the pioneers of playback singing, is also credited for the first Indian orchestra of twelve pieces and introducing  orchestral music and full-blooded choral effects, into Indian Cinema.  A master in western symphonic music was known for the Indian Classical or folk elements, especially baul and Bhatiyali in his music. He worked as a Music composer over 90 films.[v]

Saraswati Devi, perhaps India’s first woman composer, composed the songs of the films made by Bombay Talkies. Her real name was Khurshid Minocher-Homji and she was trained by the well-known musician Pandit Vishnunarayan Bhatkande. She then studied at Lord Morris College in Lucknow with music as her subject.[vi (A)]

Vasant Desai was the composer who was a man of great musical insight. His break as music a director in Shakuntala (1943) was a major hit and ran for 104 weeks at a single theatre. Desai used pure classical, folk and theatrical music perfectly for films. Vasant Desai believed in quality and not quantity. Therefore, he composed music for only 46 films in his career spanning four decades. [vi (B)]

S. D. Burman, The greatest all-rounder in Indian film music, S. D. Burman could be equally classy and jazzy. His grip on Indian folklore, his sound classical base, his capacity to absorb from the scene around him made him in high demand right till the end of his life. [vi (C)].

R. D. Burman ushered in the era of electronic rock, providing Hindi film music with a whole new happening sound. His hip and energetic youthful compositions proved extremely popular from the late 1960s till the mid-80s. His last score to stand out was perhaps 1942-A Love Story (1994), released after his untimely death due to heart attack. [vi (D)].

A. R. Rahman with OSCAR 2009

A. R. Rahman is the most talented and greatest indian film composer and musician. He described by Time Magazine as “Mozart of Madras”. His works are notable for masterly integreting Indian folk classical music with electronic music sounds and traditional orchestral arrangements. He is working not only Indian cinema but also in international cinema and theaters. Rahman has claimed sale of more than 300 millions of his film scores and sound tracks as of 2009. He has won two Academy awards, two Grammy awards, a BAFTA award, a Golden Globe, four National Film Awards, fourteen film fare Awards in addition to numerous other awards and nominations.[viii]

Bollywood produces more than 1000 films every year and has a worldwide audience of 3 Billion. In terms of viewership, Bollywood overtook Hollywood in 2004 and has been leading ever since. Not only the number of films and audience the Sound and Music of Indian cinema also makes established a distinguish platform in world cinema. This journey was started from first talkies Alam-Ara, gets its high with Slamdog Millionaire’s “Joy Ho” of A.R. Rahman and still continuing.  



[i]       Sub-Continental Cinema History, Vishayajit K. K. & Chochroborty S.R, 2003, Devi Publishers, p-28

[ii]      Half a Century in Exhibition Line 1931-1981, Arup, T. K. Indian Talkie, Special Edition, 1981, 1­56, p.

[iii]     So Many Cinema ­ The Motion Picture in India, Garga B.D. Eminence Designs Private Ltd.,Mumbai, 1996.pp.69­ 



[vi]       ten-composers.htm


Nila, Shiyun Liu 11260799

Artefact H10515 Craig Walsh 2009


Craig Walsh is a contemporary Australian artist works with digital technologies. He is internationally recognised for his experimental digital art projects and installations exploring the edge of digital and reality. The majority of Craig Walsh’s works are large-scale projections which in response to the environment of specific site. He has been awarded several national residencies and commissions, and his work has been exhibit around the world, including Canada, Japan, United States and UK[1]. Artefact H10515 is one of his lasted work exhibit in Powerhouse Museum Sydney in 2009[2].

He inhabits public spaces in order to produce a spectacle[3]. A fundamental concern for Walsh is the challenging of preconceived notions of “art, space, function, experience and reality”[4].


ARTEFACT H10515 has a very unusual and mysteries title as an Art piece . The first half of the name, Artefact, means any object made or modified by humans. The code “H10515” comes from the historical method of Museum for numbering and cataloguing objects. The Museum used to divide objects into categories such as wool, minerals, vegetable products etc. with an assigned letter of the alphabet for each. When an item entered the collection, it was categories with a letter followed by a number under the category. H10515 is the last number in the ‘miscellaneous’ or  “unclassifiable” groups[5]. Hence the title reflect to the physical environment of the exhibition where is the Powerhouse Museum and unidentifiable character of the artwork.

Craig Walsh explained his work as “a living, unidentifiable object and sits in contrast to how objects in a museum are usually presented”[6]. Like many new media artworks which involved multimedia contents, Artefact H10515 is an collaborated work by Craig Walsh with assistances from programmer and 3D animator Steven Thomasson and sound composer and designer Lawrence English[7]. The combination efforts of the experts in digital technology, make the artwork looks like a living creature lives in a large glass cube. It moves, breathes, roars, changes the colours of its skin. Its flashing tentacles react On the end of its tentacles, random pictures appears occasionally. The pictures have to source, first is based on the collection of Powerhouse Museum, and the others are from an associate website Thingalyzer. Visitors can upload their favourite things from their own collection to feed Artefact H10515. The website will estimate
a time when the picture uploaded by particular users will appear on the tentacles of  the artwork. The creature shivers, grasps the object and then seemingly ingests it. In this way, visitors to the museum can find a new method to interact and express their preference about the museum.

Thingalyzer is not only the website where to feed Artefact H10515, its also a software which downloads and decides the pictures appears on the tentacles. The video about How Artefact H10515 works reveal the tricks inside the glass cube[8]. There are four computers controls the movement and the downloaded picture datas. The living creature in the cube are all image projections generated by the computers.


Interactive Arts & Participatory culture

Dadaism in the 1910s to 1920s is one of the major culture movement that influence the emerge of digital arts[9]. Marcel Duchamp is the forerunner of interactive arts as a leading artist in dada movement. Since then, artwork is not a one-way presentation, but is a interaction happening through the circle of artist, artwork and spectator. The development of digital media tools catalyse the diversity of digital arts.

Participatory media culture also emerge in artworks. With the growing phenomena of web2.0, more and more websites are friendly to user participation and interaction. Many of them even rely their website content on their visitor, like blogs, youtube and flickers. The more open the website is, the easier it can find users. Meanwhile, media content open to multiple interoperation are more likely to become popular[10]

by Jeffery Shaw 1988

Australian digital artist and theorist Jeffrey Shaw is one of the pioneer in interactive digital art projections. The Legible City (1988-1991) is one of his most representative work which translate physical actions of the visitor to digital movements on screen[11]. Participants ride on a stationary bicycle to navigate throw streets projected in front of them, and the buildings along the streets are giant letters. Although Walsh’s piece Artefact H10515 does not involve that high level of physical movement and it doesn’t have a immersive giant screen, the idea of interactive between physical movement and computer reaction are similar, and  the physical existence of the three dimensional cube gives more veritable than the plat screen projection. Its interaction is beyond direct physical immediate reactions, but moves to between online and physical interactions which adapts to the contemporary popular participatory media culture.

Artificial Life

Artificial life and intelligence have been an area of long time interests for scientists and science fictions. Along with the development of new media arts and digital technologies, artists joint the exploration and speculation on artificial life as well.

Many digital art installations are trying to simulate or inherent the characters of artificial life, and Artefact H10515 is definitely among them. It uses the software Thingalzer to produce various predictable behaviours in responses to the action of the visitors[12]. The feasibility of the complex programming bring the liveness to this digital sculpture. The 3D image, the surrounding sounds, and the smooth animation of the movements, all of these elements combined together, blurring the boundary of real and virtual, the known and mystery.

Distinct from many other artworks and scientific research on artificial life, Walsh jumps out of the box of artificial human being or anything imitates human behaviours. He focus on non-human artificial creatures which challenges the recognition process of people whom trying to categorise unfamiliar stuff to things they know. He takes elements from familiar lifeforms, like the tentacles and snoring sound of Artefact H10515, and combine them into a inexistent creature. However, Walsh is never the first one to explore the artificial creatures use projections.

by Sommerer&Migneaun 1994

A-Volveby Sommerer&Mignonneau 1994

In 1994, Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau established an aesthetic installation called A-Volve[13]. It is one of the earliest real time interactive artwork which visitors creates their own three dimensional creatures with a touch screen computer and interact with them in a pool. These creatures behaves like animals which swims, flights and plays with each other. Many works of Sommerer & Migononeau involves direct interaction and communication between the artificial creature and physical human body[14]. Although the creatures in A-Volve are three dimensional, the technology at that time restrict the resolution and quality of the creatures. They looks like geometric figure rather than real living creature.

The recent works of Sommerer and Mignonneau have more vividness with advanced image-creation softwares. For example, Life Writer in 2006 which represents their exploration on adapt familiar daily objects with interactive computer-generated creatures.  Establish on a antiquate style typewriter,  the overhead projector use the paper scroll as the screen, and when visitors types the keys, the computer program transform letters on the paper into small artificial lives moves according to the algorithms[15].

 Database and Visualisation 

Artefact H10515 is no only artificial creature lives in the museum, it also downloads collections from the museum database and “digest” the collections according to its own order. In other words, it is a museum database in another form and curates these collections base on its own order.

Dynamic visualisation of datas is one of the popular theme in digital arts. Computer programs give the datas a visual form and the result changes according to the updates in the database[16]. One of the famous earlier projection artwork in created by Camille Utterback and Romy Achituv called Text Rain in 1999[17]. The installation invite participators actively interactive with the falling text which are dripping like raindrops but floats on people’s body[18].  The text database generates the texts and the software control the movements of text. In comparison, Artefact H10515 collect pictures rather than texts, and it generates movements of the pictures instead of texts, but the idea of database collection and alternative distribute and interact with them are similar.

Walsh’s Previous Work

In years Craig Walsh has work with large-scale site-specific projection sculptures which challenge people’s understanding of everyday locations and practises. His installations set on storefronts, buildings, rivers and rocks. Alien forms is a popular theme among Australian contemporary artists, including Patricia Piccinini, Caroline Rothwell and Louise Hearman[19]. Walsh also explores the possibility of alien life forms intrude with real physical environments.  

Classification Pending

Classification Pending by Craig WalshClassification

Classification Pending by Craig Walsh

Walsh’s piece Classification Pending is originally present on the Bremer River in Ipswich, Queensland in 2007 and now has been exhibit in several locations around the world[20]. The work projects three-dimensional reptiles with turtle head, eel neck and catfish tail swims in the river. It questions people issues like genetic engineering, environment, real and virtual.


Incursion by Craig Walsh

Incursion 37:20:15.71” N – 121:53:09.51” W (2008) featured in San Jose Biennale, California is one of his attempt[21]. Massive succulent/tentacles appears on the glass wall of San Jose City Hall Rotunda which transform the City Hall into a huge petri dish of alien creature. Its leave to the audience to identify the meaning of the mutant plant.


Increasingly sophisticated image software frees digital artists like Craig Walsh to question the boundary between reality and virtual, the familiar and weird. His work including Artefact H10515 asks people to open their mind to the unknown, rethink about their recognition process of categorised locations and objects, though different ways of interact with museum and artworks, inspires new thinkings about the rest of the world.




  1. Artist’s Statement for Multimedia Art Asia Pacific (MAAP) in Beijing, 20 October – 3 November 2002
  2. Carroli L. 2000, ʻIntroductionʼ, Insite: Craig Walsh, artistʼs monograph, IMA Publishing, Brisbane, p.6
  3. Museum of Contemporary Art, 2010, Digital Odyssey Education Kit, accessed 28 Sep 2011 <>
  4. Paul, C. 2008, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), Thames &Hudson Ltd, London.
  5. Powerhouse Museum, 2009, Artefact H10515, accessed 28 September 2011 <>
  6. Powerhouse Museum, 2009, Interview with Craig Walsh and Steve Thomasson, accessed 28 Sep 2011,
  7. Powerhouse Museum, 2009, “How it works” Artefact H10515,accessed 28 Sep 2011,
  8. Radok, S. 2008, ʻCraig Walsh: Transfigured nights, surprising daysʼ, Artlink, Vol 28, No.3.
  9. Sommerer C. and Mignonneau, L. 1994, Works: A-Volve, accessed 29 Sep 2011 <>
  10. Sommerer, C. and Mignonneau, L. 1997. “Interacting with Artificial Life: A-Volve,” In: Complexity Journal. New York: Wiley, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 13-21.
  11. Sommerer, C. and Mignonneau, L. 2006. Works: Life Writer, accessed 29 Sep 2011 <>
  12. Walsh, C. 2010, Craig Walsh, accessed 29 September 2011, <>

[1] Craig Walsh, 2010, accessed 28 Sep 2011 <>

[2] ibid

[3]Linda Carroli,ʻIntroductionʼ, Insite: Craig Walsh, artistʼs monograph, IMA Publishing, Brisbane, 2000, p.6

[4]Artist’s Statement for Multimedia Art Asia Pacific (MAAP) in Beijing, 20 October – 3 November 2002

[5] Powerhouse Museum, 2009, Artefact H10515, accessed 28 Sep 2011,

[6] Powerhouse Museum, 2009, Interview with Craig Walsh and Steve Thomasson, accessed 28 Sep 2011,

[7] Powerhouse Museum, 2009, “How it works” Artefact H10515,accessed 28 Sep 2011,

[8] ibid

[9] Christiane Paul, 2008, “Introduction”, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), Thames &Hudson Ltd, London, p11

[10] Christiane Paul, 2008, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), p110

[11] Christiane Paul, 2008, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), p72

[12] Christiane Paul, 2008, “Introduction”, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), p140

[13] Christa Sommerer and Larent Mignonneau, Works: A-Volve, accessed 29 Sep 2011 <>

[14] Christa Sommerer and Larent Mignonneau, 1997. “Interacting with Artificial Life: A-Volve,” In: Complexity Journal. New York: Wiley, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 13-21.

[15] Christa Sommerer and Larent Mignonneau, Works: Life Writer, accessed 29 Sep 2011 <>

[16] Christiane Paul, 2008, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), p175

[17] Christiane Paul, 2008, Digital Art (revised and expanded edition), p191

[18] ibid

[19] for Patricia Piccinini see for Caroline Rothwell see and for Louise Hearman see

[20] Museum of Contemporary Art, 2010, Digital Odyssey Education Kit, accessed 28 Sep 2011 <>

[21] Stephanie Radok, 2008, ʻCraig Walsh: Transfigured nights, surprising daysʼ, Artlink, Vol 28, No 3



In the post Napster music world, P2P sharing systems have made themselves into nearly every household in the world. Millions of people were exchanging and sharing files on the Internet like it was a way of life. The explosion of the Napster case in 1999 made it clear to the people, these types of systems are damaging the recording industry.[3] It was the Industry against Napster, and then it was the Industry against the users who share, who were the customers of the Industry itself. The excitement about P2P systems comes about the concept invention of easy and efficient file sharing.[1] A brilliant and harmless concept that allowed people to share files and photos over the net with high speeds and no limits became an engine system to steal creative work. From personal files turned to sharing copyrighted music and videos.  A million users could have a whole playlist of songs for free from only one single user that purchased the songs and shared them.  This report looks at how Steve Jobs and Apple saw the P2P phenomena as an opportunity to create what we now know as iTunes.

History of iTunes

Recognising this problem in the music industry that the P2P networks have created, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, saw an opportunity to change the digital landscape. The peer-to-peer network invention was not seen as an illegal nuisance through Apple’s eyes, rather it was a way to manifest the same concept and market it as a new invention. Doing what Apple does best, grabbing a past technology or a negative invention and turning it into a device that changes how we think about technology. Let’s face it, Apple have not exactly invented anything radically new since their release of the original Macintosh, with the exception of the recent phenomena the iPad. The iPod was created and released at a time where MP3 players were not excitingly new. The iPhone was not a device that introduced a new technology to the world. O2 or what we know as Blackberry nowadays has already been designing and creating touch screen phones with apps for quite some time.

Apple is famous for being able to turn current technology or older technology into something bigger, into something seemingly new. Through their ingenious marketing and design team, an already released technology can seem like a device out of this world. What makes all of Apple’s technologies so appealing may be the fact that all of them can be connected with a single app, the iTunes. Steve Jobs, recognizing the success of file sharing on the Internet, went to Robin Casady and Michael Greene to discuss the idea of using their SoundJam MP as the base program for the iTunes. SoundJam MP was a popular and powerful digital encoding program that already looked like Apple’s own Quicktime Player.[2] This was around the year of 2000.

About 10 months later, Apple decided to release the first ever version of the iTunes. With the decision to make it free software for all Mac users and also PC users, iTunes generally became the world’s best and easiest media player to use.[2]  For many people, iTunes was the introduction to digital music as it was efficient and simple, with the launch of the program as soon as a CD is inserted into a computer, which then loaded the disc and straight away receives track data from Gracenote to your library.[2]

iTunes was founded based on the idea of network sharing, the sharing of media on the internet, not for illegal purposes but for good. iTunes enabled the option to share media within the user’s home network. Then there was the release of the iPod and iTunes compatibility to the iPod. It was then clear that Apple was trying to build technologies around the iTunes, being able to connect all the devices together through one central app.

The Music World

The recording industry is only one section of consumer goods in the world. The revenue out of the Industry is not a big contribution towards the GDP as a whole. But as consumers, music is all around us, we listen to music to and from work, while exercising, as a leisure activity and we also tend to choose radios with higher music rotation.[3] So as we can see, the revenues might not be a significant amount but its share of the collective conscience is massive. “The stakes in the battle over the music business are small enough to get lost in the rounding error for world GDP…” but its significance and importance within its consumer is much larger than values shown in numbers.[4]

The basic function of the music industry is to create this connection between the artist and the consumer while compensating the stakeholders that contributed in the process. But when we think about it, the amount of marketing that the Industry does is only at a large amount to the big and famous artists while the bulk of artists only enjoy a minimal promotion. Therefore, we have come to a time where the recording companies have outlived their somewhat importance to the connection between consumers and musicians.[5] The Industry is now changed. This is why iTunes have succeeded, using the P2P sharing concept, Apple found a way to connect consumers and musicians directly with no middleman.

Album v Singles Sales

The Music Store

Obviously, the key feature of the iTunes has got to be the Music Store that is available online.  It was released with the update of the iTunes 4 in 2003 [2] and it was a big success with the store having 200,000 songs on the first day of release.  The most fascinating aspect about this feature of the iTunes is that it completely changed the face and mentality of the Music Industry as a whole. Going all out with the same idea that Napster and all P2P system had, Apple changed the way people think towards music. The Music Industry, as we see from above, has always been the connector from musician to listeners and they have always believed in the sales of a tangible object that plays the music itself. What Apple did with iTunes shifted this mentality, suddenly it made us realize that music is not about the CD or the Vinyl, it was about the actual music. It gave the listeners freedom to purchase songs not physical objects that contains songs; it also allowed us to purchase these songs off the net with a very low price and very conveniently. Apple recognized the current generation of ‘I want it now’, the generation of bloggers. So because the Music Industry then is based largely on its consumer not its revenue, it was genius for iTunes to focus the music towards them not towards promoting the recording companies. “Simply put, as long as consumers are asked to buy bundled songs  [called CDs] at about US$16…yet can access the same content for free…” the existence of physical album will be at stake.[5]

In a way we can see that iTunes regulated the problem of music piracy within P2P systems back then because what Apple did was to give consumers an efficient legal alternative to downloading music. But, in turn, the Music Industry starts to blame iTunes for killing their business. A chart is shown below that displays the decrease of album sales due to iTunes existence. The Music Industry was also said to be dying because of Apple’s DRM (Digital Rights Management) laws on their music. “No one but Apple is allowed to make players for iTunes Music Store songs, and no one but Apple can sell you proprietary file-format music that will play on the iPod.”[6] But I think we need to think of it in a different perspective, as I have mentioned before, the Music Companies are no longer needed to connect the musicians to the listeners in the generation. There is this desire to go straight to the source in this Internet age, it also allows consumers to sample music and then purchase the album if they enjoyed the first song. iTunes is clearly for the consumers and the musicians, it was made for us, it cuts out the middleman and more money goes to the musician. The Industry might get less revenue but the musicians are benefitting from this. It also allows independent artists to get exposure without big companies’ marketing. So what the app is doing is that it promotes more of the artist and gives back more towards the artist. As for the DRM, isn’t it regulating the original problem of piracy? It restricts users to make a certain amount of copies or being played on a certain amount of computers.

In conclusion, I found iTunes to be a very interesting media in this generation. It’s seen as the Industry killing machine and makes Apple look more of a bully than they already are. But I see it as one of the best or if not the only invention that Apple has come to. It seems to be able to regulate the piracy problem quite well and it’s a program that allows a legal alternative to music sampling in this P2P world of ours.


1.  Good, N & Krekelberg, A 2002, Usability and privacy: a study of kazaa P2P file-sharing, HP Laboratories Palo Alto

2.  Simon, M 2009 The Complete iTunes History – SoundJam MP to iTunes 9, 9 November, viewed 30th November 2011, <>

3. Liebowitz, S 2004, Will MP3 Downloads Annihilate the Record Industry? The Evidence So Far, in Gary D. Libecap (ed.) Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth, Volume (15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.229-260

4. Romer, P 2002, When Should We Use Intellectual Property Rights?, in The American Economic Review, Vol.92, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 213-216

5.  Frost, R 2007, Rearchitecting the music business: Mitigating music piracy by cutting out the record companies, viewed 30th November 2011, <>

6. Doctorow, C How iTunes is bad for the music industry and the public, Viewed 30th November 2011, <>

7.  LICASdigital, 2009, iTunes History, Viewed 30th November 2011 <>

8. mediastudiesaelzer, 2011, History of iTunes, #uhsmediastudies, Viewed 30th November 2011 <>

9. Captivate08, 2011, iTunes killing the music industry, Viewed 30th November 2011 <>

10. Brownlee, J 2010, Music Industry CEO Asks If iTunes Killed The Album, Viewed 30th November 2011 <>

Anatomy of a Mashup

Posted: May 16, 2011 by purpledray in 2010, Uncategorized

A visually stimulating sound mashup. Just came across this and wanted to share with you all =]

Enjoy! (especially if you like Daft Punk!)

5-Minute Mystery

Posted: May 3, 2011 by purpledray in 2010, Uncategorized

This is a link to Dray, Sandra and Sarah’s Sound Interaction project: 5 minute mystery…we hope you enjoy it