Author: Lujain Elmallah

Title: Big Brother is Watching You

Demo:

Description:

Our project channels a creepy and unsettling feeling, with the visuals as well as sound. We wanted to capture a moment that is fleeting and uncertain through our work, with the use of darker visuals and eerie sounds. Inspired by Orwell’s 1984, we wanted to mimic the idea of being surveilled and trapped within a world where there is no sense of autonomy.

Process and Contributions:

The visuals begin at a calm tone with a light blue screen subtly oscillating waiting for the performance to begin. When the music begins to get a more steady beat so do the visuals as they shift steadily from one direction to the other. The integration of layers of noise and oscillation were with an intention to capture the visual randomness of noise within the visual order of the oscillator. The result was an almost flowing maze look, which tied in well with the theme as it evoked a feeling of entrapment. With this we wanted to create a visual that is fleeting in a way, changing its flow every time it looks like it’s about to drift away. At this point the visuals are a bright red colour, with an aim to evoke the creepy and unsettling feeling the music is pushing through. When the bass comes the visuals begin to momentarily shift to a greyscale version, creating a break in the visuals. Following that when the chaos in the audio increases so does the chaos in the  visuals with the use of modulateRotate for some feedback. 

For sound, we started by bringing the two piano sounds that we really liked during our group practice session. After working on it for a while, we had different sounds playing at the same time which was a bit noisy and messy to hear. Therefore, to make the sounds more cohesive, we used mask and whenmod pattern control functions throughout the composition to create a consistent rhythmic structure. For example, we used a mask on d2 and d10 so they alternate and play one after another. This created a more defined rhythmic pattern in our performance. Later, we removed one of the piano sounds then introduced a mi-UGens and bass sound to create a more creepy and unsettling vibe. Throughout the sound creation process, we continuously searched for and experimented with different samples and sounds. That is when we found the f sharp and c notes for the bass, they were a perfect fit for the unsettling atmosphere we wanted to create.

Regarding the contributions Lujain worked on the visuals while Buka and Zeina worked on sound. 

Hydra Code: 

osc(50,1)
  .modulate(noise(100,2),cc[3])
  .mult(noise(10))
  .diff(noise(10))
  .brightness(0.6)
  .mult(shape(6,0.65,0.4))
  .modulate(osc(15,0.5).
            modulate(osc(15,0.5).rotate(2),0.2))
  .invert(()=>cc[0])
  .modulate(o0)
  .rotate(()=>cc[1]*2)
  .mult(osc(10,1),0.3)
  .colorama(()=>cc[2])
  .modulateRotate(src(o0).scale(2))
  .blend(o0)
  .blend(o0)
  .out(o0)

hush()

Tidal Code: 

start = do
  d2 $ jux rev $ arp "pinkyup" $ n "a'min" # sound "superpiano" # legato 8 # krush 0.5 # sustain 4 # attack 0.5
  d12 $ slow 4 $ ccv "63 63 90 127 127" # ccn "0" # s "midi"
  d14 $ ccv "127" # ccn "2" # s "midi"
  d3 $ jux rev $ gap 2 $ s "feelfx:0 feelfx:1" # squiz 1 # legato 2 # lpf 1200 # room 0.4 # size 0.5

start

reverse = do
  d2 $ mask "[1 0]/4" $ jux rev $ arp "pinkyup" $ n "a'min" # sound "superpiano" # legato 8 # krush 0.5 # sustain 4 # attack 0.2 # gain (fast 2 $ range 0.8 0.9 sine)
  d10 $ mask "[0 1]/4" $ s "omi" <| note "a [~ g] [c b] [g gs]" # octave "<3 4 5 6>" # sustain "{1 2 1}%8"
  d15 $ ccv "0 127 0 127" # ccn "1" # s "midi"

reverse

d5 $ mask "[0 1]/4" $ jux rev $ striate 4 $ s "msg:1 msg:2 msg:3 msg:4" # gain 1 # room 0.4 # squiz 3

d6 $ mask "[1 0]/4" $ chop 2 $ fast 2 $ s " ~ < house:3 house:3*2 >" # squiz 3

d8 $ whenmod 6 4 (fast 2) $ slow 2 $ s "bd*8" # gain (fast 2 $ range 0.7 0.8 sine)
   
play_bass = do 
  d11 $ slow 2 $ n "c fs c fs" # s "bass3" # room 0.4 # size 0.8 # lpf 1200 
  d14 $ ccv "0 127 0 127" # ccn "2" # s "midi"

play_bass

 d3 $ jux rev $ gap 2 $ s "feelfx:0 feelfx:1" # squiz 1 # legato 2 # lpf 1200 # room 0.4 # size 0.5

d5 $ mask "[0 1]/4" $ jux rev $ striate 4 $ s "msg:1 msg:2 msg:3 msg:4" # gain 1 # room 0.4 # squiz 3


d10  $ s "omi" <| note "a [~ g] [c b] [g gs]" 
    # octave "<3 4 5 6 7 8>"
    # sustain "{1 2 1}%8"


d4 silence

d4 $ mask "[0 1]/4" $ arp "thumbup" $ n "e'maj" # sound "superpiano" # krush 0.5 # legato 8 # release 1.2 # attack 0.1 # room 0.5 # gain (fast 2 $ range 0.75 0.8 sine)

d11 $ ccv (segment 128 $ range 0 127 tri) # ccn "0" # s "midi"

d12 $ fast 2 $ ccv "0" # ccn "1" # s "midi"

d13 $ fast 2 $ ccv "0" # ccn "2" # s "midi"

d14 $ stack [
  ccv "63" # ccn "0" # s "midi",
  ccv "0" # ccn "1" # s "midi",
  ccv "60" # ccn "2" # s "midi"
]

Thank you for watching. The performance has ended, but the surveillance remains.

I have always thought of technology as a source of disconnect, despite its ability to connect people and overcome distances, I believe modern day use of it led to a detachment from our realities. I have connected with works that use digital media previously, but there is still a kind of disconnect in how we experience it, where media can start to feel distant or not entirely real. Reading this challenged that assumption of mine in a way I did not expect. When the text describes how these practices can create expanded or layered forms of awareness, particularly the idea of “seeing at once both inward realities and the outward surfaces of the world,” it made me reconsider whether technology has to produce that sense of separation. Even though I am still unfamiliar with many of the concepts being discussed, several of the examples stood as an representation ot me of what technology is capable of achieving, instead of an isolation away from reality, it is capable of creating a kind of dual consciousness, where it does not pull us away from the world but allows us to engage with it in a more complex and connected way.

Entering a state where I connect with my work is something that I did feel while live coding at some point. During such times, everything seems to work smoothly and the creation process is less about exerting effort into crafting something and more about bringing to life something that emerges. Until reading the text, I had never seen this phenomenon as being relevant to any other notion but the process of coding itself. This realization made me wonder about what else can be done with live coding and how the possibilities may be extended to the creation of something that remains open-ended. Rather than serving as a representation of my concept, a creation can remain in progress and continue evolving through time. Although this idea is somewhat unexpected, it also sounds intriguing since it brings a whole new perspective on what I may create and achieve. Particularly the ability to create a state of consciousness for others also intrigued me, proving to me the capabilities our there that can come out of live coding.

In the article we establish that a performance is a spectacle that either goes through “composition or facilitation” once live depending on the position an artist places themselves in the continuum between both. Placing live coding into this continuum poses some conceptual challenges, particularly in defining where liveness and instrumental agency truly reside in such performances. Live coding simultaneously embodies real-time composition while relying on pre-existing computational structures that we often practice and reference, which complicate a clear distinction between creation and execution. Reading the opposing perspectives about liveness and performer activity raised in the article further complicates this distinction, as it becomes unclear whether the value of a performance lies in visible real-time decision-making or in the premeditated design of a cohesive audiovisual experience. While the article had a clear preference, I do find myself wondering if one is more valuable than the other or if this hierarchy in itself is a product of traditional assumptions about what counts as an “authentic” performance and what doesn’t. The distinction to an extent feel less like a measure of artistic value and more like a reflection of audience expectations, where immediacy is equated with authenticity. I do agree though that revealing the process through the display of the code and the inner workings of the performance as it is being created does create a sort of connection with the audience even if they do not fully comprehend the technical language being displayed to them. This visibility reinforces the perception of real-time decision-making, aligning live coding more closely with traditional notions of liveness as active creation rather than mere execution.