Performatization: Performing Systems Theory

Kristin Grace Erickson

Abstract. Using Systems Theory as the foundation for a renewed conceptualization of interdisciplinary performance, this paper describes the creative and technical evolution of Performatization. Coined by the author, this term extends sonification and auralization to include interdisciplinary performance as a means to represent computer processes and datasets. The author's experiments include the application of algorithmic theory to improvisational music and theater games in order to generate self-adapting, evolutionary performances. Her research includes the invention and development of M.T.Brain (Music Theater Brain), a digital platform for distributing algorithmic information to performers using parallel audio signals and headphones. M.T.Brain is currently implemented as a wireless telematic performance platform and uses OSC to route and trigger audio instructions. A Turing-Complete, object-oriented, Performer-Programming language is under development for the M.T. Brain platform, and the language is compiled as the distributed instructions are executed by the performers.

Introduction
the pieces slowly evolved into complex on-and-off systems I eliminated the timeline. What remained were scores that did not refer to sound or time two parameters traditionally inseparable from the art of music but were a complex set of rules that, in a sense, turned players on and off like toggle switches to such a complicated degree that it didnt really matter what the content was. John Zorn, The Game Pieces

If visualization visualizes data, sonification sonifies data, and auralization auralizes digital processes, then what is the name for computer datasets and processes that are modeled into performance? I propose the term performatization. Similar to the way computer monitors are visual displays, performatizations are performance displays for computer programs interdisciplinary performances that represent computer processes.

History of Influence

In his 1996 article The History of Electronic Music as a Reflection of Structural Paradigms, Joel Chadabe correlates the paradigmatic shifts of the scientific understanding of time with simultaneous developments in the structural paradigms of art and music.1 Chadabe relates Newtonian symmetrical time, that can be described forward or backward, to the act of moving away from and toward a tonal center. He also observes that between 1600 and 1900, elements of music tended to stay locked to a single chordal line similar to Newtons notion of linear time.2 The introduction of Einsteins Special Theory and Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle correlates to musical developments moving away from functional harmony found in poly-tonal, atonal, and indeterminant music.3 Einsteins time is unsychronized and consists of multiple parallel lines. Ives, Stravinsky, and Debussy reflect this in their use of fragmented and simultaneous tonal worlds.4 Chadabes model of correlating musical developments with scientific discoveries can apply to the second half of the 20th century. At the same time that systems theory, game theory, cybernetics and information theory were

Kristin Grace Erickson 2

gaining momentum, composers were experimenting with open forms, stochastic processes, and redefining the boundaries of performance. Free jazz was emerging and new tools for electronic and computer music were being developed, instruments that embody principles of systems theory.

Complex Emotional Adaptive Systems

Onto what sort of surface shall aesthetics and consciousness be mapped? Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature

If art, in the form of a complex adaptive system, is understood to be an externalization of cognitive processes, then the levels of feedback and recursion between observer and system are three-fold. The emotional feedback loop within the body is interrelated with the recursive process of knowledge acquisition, which is interrelated with the recursive process of the complex adaptive system understood as art. If the spectator and spectacle are brought into close proximity, the observer and the complex adaptive system can generate a feedback loop. The observers emotions may play a role in regulating the feedback between spectator and spectacle. These are the same emotional and cognitive processes that derive meaning from art. Emotion, in this type of feedback loop, may function similarly to empathy or catharsis, or may function through emotional information that is communicated between observer and system. Complex adaptive systems can have memory. The memory motivates the system to choose between multiple future states. In complex adaptive systems with memory, the feedback control mechanism may need to exhibit behavior similar to human emotions in order to evolve more sophisticated predictive abilities. Hurley, et al, propose a similar but also very different idea. They suggest that, if machines are to evolve to be truly intelligent machines and possess the ability to predict, then, these machines may need to develop a sense of humor.5 Our ability to model the world and predict possible futures is made possible through the coherence that humor facilitates. Humor plays a large roll in the cognitive process by recognizing and resolving contradictions in working memory. Intelligence requires these coherence-testing processes in order to keep such a massive amount of information organized. Synthesizing Hurley, et als suggestion with my previous suggestion, if intelligence is dependent on humor, and humor is dependent on emotion, then, intelligence is evolutionarily dependent on emotion. The epistemic emotions that use humor to evaluate the soundness of stored mental models, are the type of emotions whose states are stored with memories.6 Therefore, epistemic emotions are interrelated with memory functions. These emotions are characterized by their ability to sustain. They must last longer than the time necessary for a cycle of feedback to occur, since they function as a contour bridging underlying, faster, discrete processes. They sustain because they must last until the process they triggered to happen has left and returned with the newly felt state of the body. When the new message is returned, the information is fused with the original experience. Memories contain two experience states, separated in time by the length of an emotion. The first experience state is the experience of the initial trigger. The second experience state is how the body feels because of the experience. The first experience state was initiated by the emotion that waits for the second experience before fusing the memory together. The emotion accommodates for the distance in time between external and internal perception, and then the memory can be stored in long term memory. When these memories are activated, so are the stored emotional states. The reactivated emotions remind us how we felt during the experience. Epistemic emotions are added to memories in order to indicate how useful the memories are for predicting possible futures. This system of rewards and punishments allows for the epistemic emotions stored with memories to contribute to deciding which memories to activate and bring into working memory. In my previous claim, complex adaptive systems with memory may evolve to show, or may already show,

Kristin Grace Erickson 3

feedback mechanisms that function like emotions. In future systems theory performances, I will explore complex adaptive systems that have memory and investigate the usefulness of emotion-like feedback control mechanisms. Can emotions be designed into a system, or are they an expression of emergent behavior?

The Evolution and Analysis of Performing a Genetic Algorithm

what Im trying to do is make something happen by throwing a pebble into the water and creating ripples. Its like starting a good motion. I dont want to control the ripples and everything. Yoko Ono, 1968

In the Improvised Music Theater class that I originated and taught during the 2011/2012 school year, we experimented with performing a genetic algorithm. The rules of improvisational games share similar qualities with the rules of computer algorithms both are time-dependent, rule-based processes. Genetic algorithms (GAs) are a form of evolutionary computing developed by John Holland in the 1960s to model complex adaptive systems.7 Aspects of natural evolution are simulated by implementing genetic concepts like selection, mutation, crossover, and inheritance into computer processes. Genetic algorithms consider populations of data to function similarly to how chromosomes function in the reproduction process of the natural world. Stochastic functions and fitness functions are used to determine how a population of data will evolve into the next generation. A flowchart diagram of a genetic algorithm applied to performance instructions is included below.

Fig. 1. A genetic algorithm applied to performance instruction

Kristin Grace Erickson 4

After the Improvised Music Theater class studied genetic algorithms, students were asked to propose methods for performing a genetic algorithm. In order to create the performance, we used a process called iterative design described by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in their book Rules of Play. This play-based, experiential approach to game design8 emphasizes that game prototypes should be played as soon as possible, while the prototype has none of the aesthetic trappings of the final game.9 The repeated practice of playing, experiencing, and altering the game continues throughout the design process. The class equated aspects of the genetic algorithm to the improvised music theater structures they were already familiar with. The genomes of the population equated to sound and body performance gestures. Communication between two players imitated the way genetic information replicates, mutates and crosses-over. The probabilistic fitness functions were determined by the intuitive choices of the individual players. Our first attempts to perform a genetic algorithm failed. The first performance instructions primarily focused on the process of mutating sounds, as follows: 1. Players move around a space. 2. Players communicate sounds to other players. 3. If one player communicates a sound to a second player, the receiving player repeats a mutated version of the sound to a third player. 4. Repeat. In hindsight, the reason this ruleset did not generate an engaging game is obvious. The amount of new information entering the system is miniscule. Brand new information is only introduced at the beginning of the game. Once information is in the system, the players have only one option to alter the sound and repeat. This version of a performatized genetic algorithm ended very quickly, resulting in un-animated people walking around in circles and making identical apprehensive mumbles with raised eyebrows. So, we tweaked the game and played again. First, we focused on changing the rules of the sounds. Melodies were tried and mutated into different shapes. Sentences with words had their meanings mutated. Neither of these alterations significantly improved the playing experience. Next, we shifted our focus to the rules of interactions between players. Unidirectional communication required a sender and a receiver. Sequential bidirectional communication and simultaneous bidirectional communication required both players to be senders and receivers. When we instantiated mandatory bidirectional communication, we replaced mutation with the cross-over function. Now, when two sounds were made during a bidirectional exchange, both were altered by recombining the parts of the sounds. Our early attempts at performing a genetic algorithm resembled a non-linear game of Telephone. People mulled about saying things to each other and then repeating variations of the same utterances to other people. Sometimes two or three phrases would remain recognizable across generations as they were passed from person to person. Familiar elements characterizing individual phrases would stay in tact, and a player could receive a phrase they had previously altered, and then have the opportunity to alter the phrase once again. Despite that introducing new information remained limited to the beginning of the game, there was something intriguing about units of communication having a life of their own according to only a few rules. Threads of information were showing potential for circulation. One of my favorite iterations of the game was impossible. In this version, when a player received new information, they were required to concatenate the new sounds onto the end of their existing sound. This quickly generated long strings of nonsense that were extremely hard to remember and even more difficult to reiterate. With every exchange, the strings of information grew and grew. As the strings lengthened, more noise was introduced into the system because players were trying so hard to keep the information in tact. The next time the impossible amount

Kristin Grace Erickson 5

of information was repeated, the performance of the incredibly elongating expression was once again strained. Each time the phrase was repeated, the human inflections of intention and effort were recursively imprinting into the message itself. The ridiculous character of each message ramped up asymptotically immediately before the entire game would explode into chaos. The more absurd the messages became, the more performers would laugh at the circumstances they were in. The layering of the laughing upon laughing upon laughing upon laughing yielded surprising and strange performance results. The message streams became intercut with eruptions of gasps and guffaws. These interruptions were passed as fractured information through more transactions and the contours continued to evolve as imitations became imitations of imitations. This version of the game was funny on the next level. Despite the fact that adding an impossible element had fascinating repercussions, the group did not want to play again. Students responded with comments like, That was too much, and Oh no, not again. This version of the game had momentum too much momentum. Players were introducing new material into the performance uncontrollably, and having no limit bounding the streams of information took the game over the edge. I wanted to investigate performing exploding algorithms further, but the collaborative consensus had other plans. For the next iteration, a student suggested that we make the game more flexible. Her new rule went like this, When exchanging information, players can add something new to the message, or not or they can start a new message by making something up at any time. I remember thinking her suggestion would never work because the rules are too arbitrary. Are arbitrary rules even rules at all? If the rules are going to be this loose, why not just have a free-for-all? Whats the difference? This class is a collaboration, so I ignored my inner voice and we tried the new rules. As you can probably imagine, the performers had more fun than any previous iterations. Once we realized that creating looser rules was the key, we began adding more flexibility into the system. The game had vastly improved and the introduction of arbitrary rules became the first working prototype of the piece, a piece we named EVOLOVE. There are four aspects of EVOLOVE that made it successful that made us want to play again. The first aspect was the level of variety we could achieve through the same rules. Each performance generated its own shape and mood. One week, a performance would be spastic and angular. The next week, it would be mysterious and somber the week after, detached yet sweet. In addition to the variety, both the shape and mood of the performances were unpredictable from the start, so we were constantly surprising ourselves by playing. Large swells of momentum and motivation arrived while we performed. Emergence is the appearance of novel characteristics exhibited on the level of the whole ensemble, but not by the components in isolation.10 While we played EVOLOVE, each individual was unaware of exactly how their smaller efforts were contributing to the development of the larger contour. It was the exact combination of our smaller actions that caused the larger contour of the game to emerge, a contour of variety, momentum, motivation and mood. I credit the variety of shapes and moods the game expresses to the principle of emergence. Performing EVOLOVE generated a collective flowing feeling, like swimming in waves of performance. The second aspect relates to energy conservation. Other games we had played in class were goal oriented on the largest scale of the piece and required effort from every performer in order to maintain the common goal of the performance. On the other hand, EVOLOVE did not require the same amount of effort for success to occur. Playing this new game generated its own energy from the combinations of smaller exchanges. Performers were relieved of the responsibility of monitoring the overall progress. This had a mesmerizing effect on the performers and the performance. Simple exchanges of information between players was enough to make the whole system evolve. These reserves of energy contributed to performers being more relaxed in their improvisation as well. The performers exhibited less inhibition and less self-awareness. A third quality of playing was that we collectively lost track of time. Upon realizing the game was actually over, players would ask, how long was that? No one knew and guesses ranged between ten and thirty minutes. Performers were surprised to hear the actual elapsed time. EVOLOVE tended to end by its own accord and game lengths varied greatly from game to game. Losing track of time during a performance can be attributed to the concept of flow, developed by

Kristin Grace Erickson 6

Csikszentmihalyi. He describes a primary characteristic of flow as, the sense that the duration of time is altered; hours pass by like minutes, and minutes can stretch out to seem like hours.11 We must not forget what Guerino Mazzola and Paul Cherlin have contributed to Csikszentmihalyis original concept. Mazzola and Cherlin conclude that flow does not alter time perception, instead flow abolishes time12 and consciousness becomes organized by gesture in the making. A fourth observation was that the game exhibited a leveling effect on our improvisation. As we played, the performance gradually tuned itself into a tighter balance. Students would come to class, each with unique energy from their individual lives. Playing EVOLOVE tamed the chaos of student energy. The game requires physical interaction and often non-verbal vocalization between players. Humans imitate each other during interactions, and the longer this game is played, the more imitative interactions get repeated. The leveling-effect may relate to the development of self-adapting communication codes. During the game, styles of communication manifested in patterns of contour that remained recognizable while other aspects of communication were changing. The leveling-effect correlates to homeostasis, the property of a system to maintain stability by regulating its internal environment. Instability can result from subtle changes in a system. Homeostasis may have emerged through iterative design and the process of choosing collectively preferred rules. This may indicate why players did not want to play the ridiculous impossible game anymore. Even though it generated the most laughter and energy, the rules could never support homeostasis. To reiterate, our iterative design decisions were based on intuitive preferences for rules with potential for the emergence of homeostasis. John Holland is responsible for identifying complex adaptive systems while at the Santa Fe Institute. He invented genetic algorithms to model complex adaptive systems. Complex adaptive systems are complex systems that show coherence in the face of change.13 They are dynamical systems made of interacting, adaptable, selfsimilar structures. They exhibit emergence, and are more specific than cybernetic systems because the internal agents are cooperative. Examples of complex adaptive systems are the stock market, terrorist networks, human computer interactions, the immune system, the cell, ideology, artistic collaborations, and evolution. Analyzing the collaborative design process of performing a genetic algorithm indicates a clear correlation between the characteristics of complex adaptive systems and the characteristics of performing a genetic algorithm.

Incorporation

To combine music, theater, games, improvisation, and incorporation into a single form requires defining and reducing each form to a desired essence. Each discipline has a unique history and an abundance of traditions, genres, methodologies, and jargon. After the necessary parts have been identified in order to construct a whole, the elements, styles, and traditions of the original disciplines that were eliminated may be resurrected and reintroduced as necessary. This would happen in the form of individual pieces specifically written for this collaborative performance platform. Improvisation and incorporation are not generally accepted as disciplines unless they are connected to an art form or academic field. One of the goals of this work is to investigate how improvisation and incorporation might be understood as disciplines on their own. In his book In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation, Gordon Calleja suggests the term incorporation as a way to resolve conflicts of definition that arise because of the interchangeable and inconsistent ways previous scholars have defined presence, absorption, and immersion. Calleja believes that incorporation is more accurate representation of what is generally meant as immersion. Concepts of presence and immersion have been developed by video game designers, virtual environment designers, artificial intelligence theorists, and presence theorists. Although generally considered to be explicitly related to interacting with technology, incorporation features aspects that can potentially enlighten any interactive art form. Calleja describes incorporation as an intensification of internalized involvement that blends a number of dimensions. It is a synthesis of movement within a habitable domain along with other agents , personal and

Kristin Grace Erickson 7

designed narratives , aesthetic effects , and the various rules and goals of the game itself.14 Calleja has chosen the term incorporation because the original meaning of the word includes two interpretations, as a sense of assimilation to mind, and as embodiment.15 For Calleja, the habitable domain is a virtual environment. For some, a virtual environment is a two or three dimensional digital space simulating an inhabitable real space. Calleja found this definition problematic because it suggests that the player is not also experiencing the real world at the same time they are navigating in a virtual space. Virtual world inhabitants do not forget where their real bodies are located, as some had hoped. His redefinition is an attempt to synthesize the virtual and real spaces into one experience, to reunify the mind and body during immersion. Calleja makes great efforts to extend the definition of the virtual environment to include the real environment. Building on this inclusive process could lead to a model for augmenting real-space performances to include virtual dimensions. Many of the issues virtual environment designers face can be solved by beginning the design process in realspace. For some, this proposition may defeat the purpose, but considering the limitations of human computer interaction required for navigating in virtual environments, real-space becomes rather appealing. In order to include the real world in his definition of incorporation, Calleja is in the real-world while trying to reincorporate the real world. This process is literally circuitous. Instead of reaching into the computer to define the real world, Calleja might have an easier time inviting the virtual environment into the real world. A digital virtual environment can be reduced to the rules and relationships between things in an environment, and is the general definition of a system. Therefore, incorporation is the act of becoming part of a system. Incorporation is entering into Huizingas Magic Circle. Incorporation is worth considering for real-space collaborative improvisational performance because it lays out a framework for performer interaction as an enhanced definition of a play-system. Incorporation is not the rules, the actions, or the frame surrounding play. Incorporation is the state of mind and body that occurs when participating in a system of play.

A Performer-Programming Language
For example, a chord should be thought of as a musical verb, not a noun. It is a channel of action, a temporary marker for movement, a signpost with arrows on a road leading to somewhere on the continuously stretching rubber sheet of musical space-time. David Rosenboom, Collapsing Distinctions

In their article A Box, Darkly: Obfuscation, Weird Languages, and Code Aesthetics, Michael Mateas and Nick Montfort describe a history of esoteric programming languages used for humor or to reveal idiosyncrasies in existing programming languages.16 My performer-programming language incorporates concepts from auralization, audio warnings, Human Speakable Programming Languages (HSPL), and ABL (A Behavior Language). ABL is an artificial behavioral programming language used to control digital autonomous agents in virtual interactive environments to make artificial interactions seem real. Currently, behavioral programming languages are mainly used in virtual environments and video games. This project explores the potential of extracting technologies developed for virtual environments and applying them to the real world using human performers in lieu of computer generated avatars. M.T. Brain (Music Theater Brain) is a computer platform I am developing for generating spontaneous music theater performances. Using a headphone distribution system, audio instructions are fed to live performers. A routing matrix assigns individual parallel channels of audio to each performer. The computer is central for generating and routing the audio. Live instructions are sent in real-time by a performance prompter through the platform interface.

Kristin Grace Erickson 8

Sub-routines can be called that activate generative algorithms determining the timing and content of performer instructions. Individual pieces can be composed specifically for the platform, and there is a good indication that M.T.Brain can accommodate a wide variety of performance disciplines and styles. The M.T. Brain platform was initially conceived to address issues in a cue card based improvised music theater game inspired by John Zorns Cobra. When using cue cards to structure music theater improvisation, performers were required to maintain eye contact with the prompter. This focal necessity became a hindrance when moving around, and the implementation of in-ear cueing systems was explored. Early M.T. Brain performances required two spaces separated by a large window. Half of the ensemble would be on each side of the glass. Using mobile phones, the performers on one side of the window would call the performers on the other side to personally deliver performance instructions. There was something lovely about having a one-to-one relationship between individual performers and prompters.

Fig. 2. M.T.Brain 1-to-1 telephone realization

The next prototype introduced a computer brain written in Max/MSP and the ability for audio instructions to to be spontaneously rerouted into any formation. In M.T. Brain performances using this configuration, performers wore large numbers on their shirts because the audio instructions referred to the performers by their channel number. The promising aspects of this performance architecture lies in the highly synchronized temporal accuracy of rhythmic gestures that were scattered digitally between channels. If each performer was assigned 1/8 of the components constituting a complete gesture, the direct link from computer audio to ear and brain allowed for increased precision and multi-performer combinatorial gestures to be heard (with little or no rehearsal). Performers could function like keys on a player piano.

Fig. 3. M.T.Brain using a sound card to route audio to performers

Kristin Grace Erickson 9

The most recent incarnation of the M.T.Brain platform replaces the cumbersome cables of the audio routing system with a wireless iOS application. Each performer wears headphones connected to their phone. The new Max/ MSP computer brain routes OSC data to individual phones, and the data triggers audio files stored on the phone, or a text-to-speech robot voice is heard. Introducing the iOS app into the M.T.Brain platform allows performers to type instructions directly to other performers and performers can send information to influence the direction of the piece.

Fig. 4. Screenshot of the M.T.Brain iOS app

For the M.T. Brain platform, I am developing a performer-programming language for generating music theater performances. The language is built from a combination of speech and sound, and will be object-oriented and Turing-Complete. Can a performance calculate the value of , and if so, to what decimal place?

Works Cited
Auslander, Philip. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. London: Routledge, 1999. Bateson, Gregory, A Theory of Play and Fantasy. in The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology, ed. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004: 315317. Bateson, Gregory, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von, General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Brazilier, Inc., 1968. Bogost, Ian, Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008. Brackett, John. John Zorn: Tradition and Transgression. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008. Calleja, Gordon. In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2011. Chadabe, Joel, The History of Electronic Music as a Reflection of Structural Paradigms. Leonardo Music Journal 6, 1996: 4144. Chaitin, Gregory. Meta Math! The Quest for Omega. New York: Vintage Books, 2005. Chaitin, Gregory, To a Mathematical Definition of Life, ACM SICACT News, no. 4 (January 1970). Chaitin, Gregory, Toward a Mathematical Definition of Life, The Maximum Entropy Formalism. Cambridge: The MIT Press,1979. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc., 1990. Dubus Gael, and Roberto Bresin, Sonification of Physical Quantities Throughout History: A Meta-study of Previous Mapping Strategies, The 17th International Conference on Auditory Display. Budapest, 2011. Flanagan, Mary. Critical Play: Radical Game Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2009. Frysinger, Steven P. A Brief History of Auditory Data Representation to the 1980s, First Symposium on Auditory Graphs. Limerick, Ireland: July 10, 2005. Holland, John, Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Holland, John H., Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, Mass., Helix Books, 1995. Hurley, Matthew M., Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams, Jr. Inside Jokes: Using Humor to ReverseEngineer the Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011. Huron, David. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006. Huizinga, Johanes, Homo Ludens: A Strudy of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949. Laurel, Brenda. Computers as Theatre. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1991. Laszlo, Alexander, and Stanley Krippner, Systems Theories: Their Origins, Foundations, and Development, Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998.

Kristin Grace Erickson 11

Mateas, Michael and Nick Montfort, A Box, Darkly: Obfuscation, Weird Languages, and Code Aesthetics Proceedings of the 6th Digital Arts and Culture Conference, IT University of Copenhagen, 13 (Dec 2005): 144 153. Mazzola, Guerino B., and Paul B. Cherlin. Flow, Gesture, and Spaces in Free Jazz: Towards a Theory of Collaboration. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009. Mitchell, Melanie. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. Cambridge: Then MIT Press, 1996. Nachmanovitch, Stephen, This is Play New Literary History 40, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 124. Richardson, Kurt A., and Michael R. Lissack, On the Status of Boundaries, both Natural and Organizational: A Complex Systems Perspective. Emergence 3, no. 4 (2001). Rosenboom, David, Collapsing Distinctions: Interacting within Fields of Intelligence on Interstellar Scales and Parallel Musical Models. Los Angeles, David Rosenboom Publishing, 2003. David Rosenboom, Propositional Music: On Emergent Properties in Morphogenesis and the Evolution of Music. Part I: Essays, Propositions and Commentaries. Leonardo 30, no. 4 (1997). Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. Salzman, Eric, and Thomas Dsi. The New Music Theater: Seeing the Voice, Hearing the Body. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Sawyer, R. Keith. Group Creativity: Music, Theater, Collaboration. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003. Scaletti, Carla, Sound Synthesis Algorithms for Auditory Data Representation, Auditory display: Sonification, Audification, and Auditory Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1994. Schnupp, Jan, Israel Nelken, and Andrew King. Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011. Snyder, Bob. Music and Memory: An Introduction. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000. Vickers, Paul and James L. Alty, The Well-Tempered Compiler? The Aesthetics of Program Auralization, Aesthetic Computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006: 335354. Worrall, David, Sonification and Information: Concepts, Instruments, and Techniques: Chapter 2. PhD diss., University of Canberra, 2009. Zorn, John, and Christoph Cox, Game Pieces, Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2008.

Endnotes

1. Joel Chadabe, The History of Electronic Music as a Reflection of Structural Paradigms Leonardo Music Journal 6 (1996), 41-44. 2. Chadabe, 41. 3. Chadabe, 41. 4. Chadabe, 42. 5. Hurley, Matthew M., Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams, Jr., Inside Jokes: Using Humor to ReverseEngineer the Mind (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011), Kindle Location 1199-1233. 6. Hurley, et al, Kindle Location 1086-1099. 7. Melanie Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999). 8. Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), Kindle Location 238. 9. Salen and Zimmerman, Kindle Location 244. 10. Alexander Laszlo and Stanley Krippner, Systems Theories: Their Origins, Foundations, and Development Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998), 57. 11. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: Harper Collins, Inc..2008), Kindle Location 1101. 12. Mazzola, Guerino B., and Paul B. Cherlin, Flow, Gesture, and Spaces in Free Jazz: Towards a Theory of Collaboration (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009), 103. 13. John H. Holland, Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity (Reading, Mass., Helix Books, 1995), 4. 14. Gordon Calleja, In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011) Kindle Location 2903. 15. Gordon Calleja, In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011) Kindle Location 2899. 16. Michael Mateas and Nick Montfort, A Box, Darkly: Obfuscation, Weird Languages, and Code Aesthetics Proceedings of the 6th Digital Arts and Culture Conference, 1-3 (IT University of Copenhagen, Dec 2005), 144-153.