Hello, my name is Anna Spagnolli and I am affiliated with the Human Inspired Technology
Research Centre at the University of Padova in Italy.
Along with my colleagues Diletta Mora, Valeria Orso, Matteo Fanchin and Luciano Gamberini
we carried out the study that I'm going to present here.
The study was part of a EU project called VisualMusic whose goal was to design and evaluate
an automated software for VJs.
Our specific role within this project was to test the target users’ acceptance of
this software.
Our study will be outlined briefly in this presentation. But you can refer to the paper for
more details and for contact information.
First of all, what is an automated VJ software?
It is editing software that produces 3D visuals, such as the one that you are seeing now, whose appearance
changes in accordance with the music.
Visuals like these are used during live music events of any sort, from small nights at clubs
to large music festivals.
The target users of this software are VJs or DJs who want to have visuals well synchronized
with music in their show.
The VJ software would work in this way.
First of all, one needs to have some 3D content ready, such as for example the little astronaut here.
The content is created elsewhere and then imported into the VJ software.
Then the user starts connecting some music parameters with the animations of the 3D object imported in the software.
Once the connections are defined and the project saved, the visuals are ready.
They can play automatically in a sort of autopilot mode in the show or might respond to specific input from the
performer during the show.
Our initial responses collected from prospective users were not encouraging. We had sentences like the following:
“Software like this could be an asset, but it's often badly exploited”
Or “I think it is useful, but also risky”
We couldn't figure out exactly what was the position of the target users, if they were
more or less inclined to ultimately adopting the software.
What prevailed was ambivalence.
Therefore we decided to carry out our study with a qualitative approach, which allowed
us to focus on the content of the target users’ specific statements and opinions.
In this way, we could identify their specific reasons for accepting or rejecting the software,
information that a quantitative approach to acceptance would not provide.
And also we wanted to use an approach which embraces ambivalence. Where ambivalence is not considered as a problem,
but as endogenous to expressing an opinion.
We found these requirements satisfied by what is called an argumentative approach to opinions,
which was elaborated by discursive psychologists such as Billig, Potter and Whetherell.
According to this approach, our opinions are inherently argumentative because they position
the speaker with respect to a controversial issue.
Any given position is argued for with the help of some premises.
Premises are statements that are generally agreed upon by the community to which the
speaker belongs.
In light of these considerations, our goal became to identify the controversies gathering
around the adoption of automated VJ software and also to find the arguments allowing to
take a position on such controversies.
We started with phase one of the study.
It is most common in qualitative studies not to start abruptly with the core phenomenon
investigated, but to first familiarize with the context in which the phenomenon takes
place.
So we first conducted a study in which we wanted to understand what was the user's perspective
of their sector of activity, because it is in this sector of activity that they would
eventually have to use the software.
We asked prospective users what were the changes that happened in their sector in the last few years; what
were the difficulties in doing a good job in their sector; what it means to do a high caliber live performance;
And what it means to be respectable in their profession.
We asked these questions to a few people face-to-face after an informed consent.
They were 7 stakeholders, 38 years old on average, all men and all of them with a long
experience in the live music performance sector.
At the same time, we asked the same questions via an on-line survey, also including an informed
consent.
We reached in this way 102 respondents about 33 years old on average, 79 of whom were men.
They were of various provenance, as you can see, but they were all experienced in their job and used to perform internationally.
The results are explained in more detail in the paper, but in a nutshell we found that
VJs’ and DJs’ perspectives differed in some respects.
VJs, for example, considered that the demand for visuals was growing, whereas DJs felt
that their sector was saturated.
To DJs, visuals would give a competitive advantage in this saturated sector.
The question is whether they would use a VJ person to do so or automated software.
Another difference is that VJs think that their software is outdated compared with DJs' software.
software.
They also complain that they have to take care of purchasing and carrying the software and
the equipment themselves at the venue, while DJs find all the needed equipment at the performance venue ready.
So VJs feel the need for better equipment, while DJs feel the need for visuals that they
can add to their performance.
Finally, both kinds of professionals feel that their work has to do more with
art than anything else.
Being popular or good at entertaining the audience is not what makes them respectable;
doing artistic products is.
Having a knowledge of the target user’s perspective of the context in which they might
use VJ software allowed us to proceed to phase two in our study.
Phase two consisted of a set of interviews on automated VJ software.
We carried out them via WhatsApp, so we could record the interviewers’
answers very easily and set an appointment without the need for physical
traveling.
The informed consent was asked before each interview.
We reached 12 VJs and 13 DJs, including some women.
The questions that we asked were what they thought about the relationship between software
and creativity, between software and the job market, and between software intuitiveness and art.
The analytic process consisted of transcribing all the interviews; then we extracted from the
interviews the pieces in which the interviewees expressed some positions on the software.
In each extract we then found the premises on which the positions stood.
And then we identified the main controversies addressed by the interviewees' argumentations.
We found four main controversies related to adopting VJ software.
The first controversy is whether automated software impacts on creativity positively
or negatively.
Then depending on the argument and on the premise the position could be positive or
negative.
One premise that – if fulfilled – could make the difference between positive and negative is whether the artist is or not responsible
for using their tools creatively.
So they answered that if the artist is able or enabled to use the tool creatively, then
automated software can have a positive impact on creativity.
The second controversy has to do with the relationship between automation and art.
In particular, whether an automatically generated visual is artistic or not.
The positions taken depended on one premise: that there is art as long as there is a human
touch, so to speak.
So, if the software allows for some intervention of human artists, then the interviewees see a possibility
for an artistic product; otherwise, they don't.
The third controversy was whether intuitive software is for professionals or just for
beginners.
The position could depend on several arguments.
One of them was that intuitiveness must not mean that the software only has limited functions and basic controls.
Finally, a fourth controversy had to do with whether VJ software shrinks or boosts the VJs'
job market: will they lose their job because they are replaced by automated software?
The answer depends on whether they looked at the short or long run: in the long run,
they think that the audience will become dissatisfied with automated visuals and will ask for more artistic products.
In the short run, artists can have a job creating the 3d content with which the VJs software
is fed.
From this, we extracted some reasons for rejection; a few risky features that might warrant the software a prompt rejection.
Our designers were advised that if they created software which only allows full automation
without even a window for manual intervention, this would be perceived as a job threat by
artists.
Also, if the software did not allow to import content created with other software then it
would be perceived as a job threat,
because it would deprive VJs of the chance to survive by creating 3D content
in case all other aspects of the performance
are taken over by the automated software.
Third, if the interface is unintuitive
it would be perceived as very disturbing because that would steal time from artistic work.
Fourth, artists don't want any software that only provides them with basic controls because it would
be taken as a toy for beginners.
In conclusion, this study contributes some guidelines to prevent principled rejection
of automated software; it suggests a method to allow the study of ambivalence and acceptance qualitatively;
it suggests some reasons why users and consumers
discredit computer-generated music as non-artistic.
Thank you for your attention.
Here are my co-authors and the logos of the partners in our project.(www.visualmusicproject.com)