Armin's Weblog

For my final project in Nature of Code I plan to turn my Midterm Project, the Kite Simulation, into a game. The goal of this game will be for the player to keep the kite in the air as long as possible. While this was simple with the simulation, it will be harder with game as I will add several new elements.

Kite Simulation

First off, the player will control the person on the screen with keyboard commands instead of the mouse. In addition, there will be a new function, which will be a vector that serves to lengthen the rope connecting the player to the kite. This will create the opposite effect of the mouse-press from the simulation. It will also play a role in the beginning of the game when the player will have to move towards the wind and lengthen the rope to get the kite airborne. This part of the game might prove difficult to create so it is possible that I will leave it out.

Once the kite is up in the air, the player will have to keep it there despite new elements that will enter the screen. The first of these will be a helicopter, which will fly across from right to left. This object will have its own force that will push and/or pull the kite if the kite is too close. It will also destroy the kite if it runs into it, ending the game. The next element will be a jet plane that will have the same effect as the helicopter except the plane will move faster and perhaps cross the screen at a higher altitude.

However, the most interesting new element will be the addition of a rainstorm. This storm will move across the screen with the wind (left to right) and will let lose rain droplets. The droplets will be purely a visual element with no direct effect; however, the storm will also be accompanied by a strong downdraft. This will force the player to move the kite out of the rain shaft quickly. This shaft will not be very wide, probably not wider than the strong updraft.

Speaking of the updraft from the simulation, it will still exist in the game only this time it will be invisible. Nevertheless, the player will need to find the updraft to help keep the kite aloft. Another new element will assist the player this endeavor, a swarm of little bugs. These bugs, which will probably just look like small dots on the screen, will move quickly across the screen at low altitude and when they encounter the updraft will be pushed upward. They will then continue to move off screen. The updraft will change position during the course of the game so the bugs may return.

Finally, I will also throw in some L-System trees just to make the environment a little more interesting. However, I might also add a condition where the kite can either get stuck or be destroyed if it lands in a tree.

Scoring for the game will be based how long the player can keep the kite up in the air in the middle part of the screen. If the kite touches the edges or goes too high, points might be deducted. As stated before, the game will end if the kite crashes into the ground or is hit by the helicopter or plane. I might also add a timing device that will end the game after a certain period of time has passed. The most obvious way to do this is to resurrect my setting sun from last semester’s Courage vs. Cowardice game. I may or may not do this.

If creating the game takes too long, as a fall back option I can simply add the new elements and let the program stand as a new and improved kite simulation. The key for me is adding those new elements, which encompass many of the topics we have learned and used in Nature of Code.

Posted by Armin Cooper at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's my second prototype. It doesn't work although I tried really hard to get it fucntioning. The game was supposed to be this: bombs would fall down the grid and the player, using the avatar would try to block them by putting rectangles in their path. The avatar works but the bombs don't.

Click below for game prototype:
Bomb Blocker

Click below for Flash and ActionScript files:
Files

Posted by Armin Cooper at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I definitely feel that minimalist American music is an extension of Arnold Schoenberg's music. Schoenberg was pushing away from the traditional classical music of the 19th century and before because many felt that all the good music of that type had already been composed. I, personally, have never believed that so I look at minimalist music somewhat skeptically. Sometimes I feel that it isn't music at all, just coordinated sound. For me, music is at its best when it elicits an emotional response from the listener. Often I feel this is lacking with a lot of modern music like Glass, Cage and Reich. In addition, repetition seems to loose its purpose when used in minimalist music. For the older conventional forms, repetition is important because it is one of the things that, for me, connects music to the sound of speech. In minimalist music, repetition can just seem monotonous.

Posted by Armin Cooper at 01:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Learning about and finding the Max Neuhaus piece in Times Square was an interesting adventure. Although I had been to Times Square more times than I can count, I had never heard (literally and figuratively) of the piece before. Consequently, it was no surprise that I had trouble finding it. I went twice to Times Square. The first time I only new generally where the piece was supposed to be but not much else. That was purposeful because I didn’t want my own interpretation altered by someone else’s description. Unfortunately, I didn’t know exactly where to go so I missed the piece. Then I did further research on the web and as I later said to my wife, echoing a line from the movie Forbidden Planet, “The thing is invisible!”

Now, armed with the knowledge that there was actually nothing to see, I went back to Times Square. I almost missed the installation again as I wasn’t sure which traffic island I needed to go to or what at what end. Finally, after a couple of minutes, I stumbled literally right on top of it. What was interesting was that the site was crowded with people. There was a film crew shooting over part of the grate where the sound was coming from and many pedestrians had stopped to gawk at them. There was even a camera on a boom right over my head. What I found very interesting, though, was that no one else seemed to be aware of Neuhaus’ sound installation. I stood there listening as if I was the only one.

Neuhaus’ Times Square piece along with his other installations described in the article “Tuning Space: Max Neuhaus and Site-Specific Sound,” allowed me to start thinking about sound in a whole different light. Audio input is something that a person can take for granted and yet Neuhaus is turning it into the basis for his artistic expression. I am used to connecting sound to emotions through music or just simply ignoring it, the second idea being the result of growing up and living in New York City for so long. However, Neuhaus connects sound with location and the effect is to allow the listener to reevaluate his or her notions about sound. I found myself grinning as I stood there on that traffic island in the middle of Times Square because I felt I knew something that everyone else around me did not. They were caught up in what they were seeing, while I was appreciating what I was hearing and all the other sounds of traffic and pedestrians were unimportant.

My experience was of course the result of the time and the place around me. This is possible only if one removes audio art from its expected places, such as the concert hall. Neuhaus recognized this in the 1960s and his various installations are the result. As the article says, these installations are not really Minimalist in nature but rather an examination on how sound and space can interact. I find now that I wish I could have experienced Neuhaus’ other works such as Drive in Music or Public Supply I. A trip to Dea Beacon just might be in my future.

Tonight I went to concert at the ISSUE Project Room in Brooklyn. David and Gisela Gamper performed their piece, "See Hear Now:Visble Music" along with Geoff Gersh. The performance space was a mid-sized ciruclar room with display screens on one wall and speakers hanging from the ceiling. In the piece, video was projected in patches on the screen while the performers played behind the audience. David Gamper created digital sounds using Max/MSP while Gisela Gamper conducted live video mixing. Geoff Gersh played an electric guitar along with electronic devices and found objects.

The piece that was performed was, in my opinion, a little long, lasting nearly one hour. Although everything was happening live it was a little hard to perceive the connection between the video and the sounds. I felt the best part was when a sound was created, recorded and played back in an altered form. That almost hinted at possible audience participation although there was none. Contrasting this performance with the works of Max Neuhaus, one can begin to understand what Neuhaus was reacting against in the 1960s. All that video and sound in a small space was too overwhelming and as an audience member, it was difficult to remain focused.

Final Project Idea

My idea for a final project in Audio Art has to do with exploring a hypothesis I’ve developed over the years. I meant to mention this in my presentation a couple of weeks ago but we ran out of time. I believe that there is a definite relationship between the sound of speech and Classical Music. To examine this, what I would like to do is have my wife, who is taking an acting class right now, record a short soliloquy, which I will then analyze for such things as pitch, rhythm and intervals. I will then use that analysis as the basis for a short composition. My goal is to show that I can create music that has a definite coloration with the sound of speech. To further the idea that Classical Music does this already, my composition will be in the Neo-Classical or Neo-Baroque style.

Posted by Armin Cooper at 04:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)