Lucas et. al, 2021 discusses how artists interact as users with technology to create music. They discuss three frameworks for discussion within their paper cross-pollinating ecological perspectives in ADMI design and evaluation. I would like to briefly discuss those frameworks, some thoughts of my own and reaction to them.
The first of these frameworks is the music-making ecologies perspective (MEP). Below is a diagram of this framework and some description:
The second framework titled Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) framework. I have included the figure below and some points that outlined the description of this framework
The first of these frameworks is the music-making ecologies perspective (MEP). Below is a diagram of this framework and some description:
- ' Here an artistic agent and musical object are depicted within one of several potential ecologies. Within any ecology exists a constellation of affordances, connecting the artistic agent and musical object and specific constraints. Specificities focus on particular attributes of the ecology for evaluation purposes. Herein the authors will refer to the description of music-making ecologies above as the musical ecologies perspective (MEP).'. Lucas et. al, 2021 pp.4
The second framework titled Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) framework. I have included the figure below and some points that outlined the description of this framework
'
...the HAAT model consists of: interconnected elements; the human, activity, assistive technology and the situated context of the three. Although subtle, using the term human instead of user is an unintended nod in the MEP direction. Assistive technology is deliberately placed at the end of the HAAT acronym, encouraging those implementing the framework to prioritise the human and activity [4]. Such an approach benefits greatly from participatory design practices (i.e. the involvement of intended users as stakeholders in the design process) [16]. Lucas et. al, 2021 pp. 6
.
The third framework is the Matching Person and Technology (MPT) also outlined below with a figure and some description.
'...on the surface, there is a degree of similarity between the MPT and HAAT frameworks. The MPT framework separates into three distinct elements; the person, milieu/environments of use and technology. While activities are not explicit in the MPT conceptual model, they do not appear to bear lesser importance. Indeed, the MPT draws influence from the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which deems Participation and Activities to be Contextual Factors [20]. Therefore, activities form part of the MPT milieu. As with the HAAT model, it is somewhat challenging to consider such fluid facets as distinct categories.' Lucas et.al. 2021, pp. 12
It is around the fluidity of the categories where my thoughts on these frameworks are orientated. These frameworks function well for structuring interaction between the user, the assistive technology, the environment they are creating in and the music they want to make. However, I feel starting the research and deign with these categories and the borders between each in the framework is something that I think could be considered, Firstly, should there even be distinct lines between these interactions? The borders are definitely necessary in terms of framing a process to integrate an artist and technology when developing an instrument; but something I would like to add in response to this is a more fundamental question of the relationship between the user and the assistive technology towards what they want to create. I am looking into this purely from a philosophical or artistic ideology of the relationship between artist, instrument and music-making.
In this research and design the artist is treated as a user that must interact with (assistive) technology in order to create and manipulate sound in a way that they wish to create music. There is very much a focus on the artist as a user and how they can best access the assistive technology. The frameworks and the question are very much focused on investigating the needs of the user, discussing, reporting outcomes and providing conclusions around this interaction between the user and the technology. but I still feel there is a question of how does a' user' relate to, or build a relationship with an instrument in the first place?
To begin an investigation, I would first of all like to take away the term user, and solely use artist. I would then like to detangle or disconnect the idea that the user and the technology are separated and must connect as if separate entities for the artistic endeavour of creating music and sound. I also want to take away the term assistive technology and simply use the term instrument, as this is how musicians throughout time have referred to music-making tools. I consider that this is a more 'endearing' term that forges a stronger bond between the artist and their instrument. The term assistive technology is rather more clinical and purveys what I think is an idea that separates the artist and their instrument.
When considering the relationship between an artist and their instrument, I would like to start with considering my own relationship with my saxophone from before I had my accident. I remember fondly when preparing to play either for practice, rehearsal or performance the ritual of taking the saxophone from the case and assembling it. This ritualistic process allowed me to connect with the instrument in a way that would not only prepare the instrument to be played, but prepare me to play the instrument. As each part of the saxophone was placed together, I would feel as if I was connecting with the instrument. This would be especially apparent when testing the reed, and strongly felt as I placed my fingers on the keys. As I felt the pressure of the springs of the keys against the pads of my fingers this sensation of touching the instrument before producing the first sound would give me an extremely strong connection. This is where my response really begins in how the relationship between the artist and their instrument can be considered.
Through making this connection with the instrument (my saxophone), and forging the strong relationship it now felt as if we were not separate entities, I was not a user and the instrument was not merely a tool, but we were bound together ready to produce a creative output. That creative output in these instances was to make music. So here is how I consider the framework existed around my music-making with my saxophone, and how I think it could be considered when we talk about artists and the tools they need to use to create music - whether theyare acoustic instruments, electronic devices and/or assistive technologies. The relationship framework is not between User-Tools-Creation, but simply between the artist and their creativity. The tools that they need to use for this creation are bound intimately with the artist, and philosophically can be considered not separately, but as one creative force or entity.
This consideration I propose is simply to provide a fundamental question around how the solution for creativity with disabled artists can be approached. Not to simply solve a connection between an arttist and the instrument they use, but the larger connection between the artist and their creative output. That is the most important question, and the one that should propel the investigation. The istruments, whatever they may be, must come from what relationship an artist wants to have with their instrument. What they wish to and what can be created, is determined by that intimate relationship as there is a bond that unites them as they pursue their creative practice. so the research and design for their instrument is dictated by this relationship. .
Although this is not a practical framework, it is here to provoke a question to consider, possibly at the beginning of any research or investigations and developments towards discoveries, designs and solutions. This simple and fundamental query for and to any creative artist with limited movement or other impairment may help to establish the direction of their relationship with the instrument and how that can develop to achieve the creative outcomes. From first considering this question the frameworks of MEP, HAAT and MPT can be applied to serve the purpose of this fundamental question, but with a strong creative ideology attached.