SONIC POINT OF VIEW is a modular installation, that was supposed to "connect Heaven and Earth" with very simple means. The emphasis is on creating "an image of wholeness". Therefore, every possible "connection" that would arise needed to point out to this elementary dualism of "Heaven and Earth". A number of other similar interpretations, from various systems of thought were combined to this elementary system of duality - every system bringing its own symbolics. Systems cannot be easily translated into one anyother. A simple combination of a reduced (straightforward, clean) aesthetic (conceptual) model seemed a too easy job. Who needs a simple machine that one can buy at every corner. Therefore I added to the modular (material) part of installation also the modules of symbolic values from different thought systems. Symbols are stereotyopes - they are heavily concentrated with meanings and using the least amount of space. How we connected "Heaven and Earth"? To this elementary duality we superpositioned the aesthetic double of Sound (=Earth) and Vision (=Heaven). Since they are not conforming, the meanings start to multiply: vision brings forth the submeanings: image, view, understanding, reflection, thought, spiritual, the upper..., and the sound bringing the ideas of multiplity, omnipresence, fullness, resonance, the material nature of things (and thoughts). In fact: I see it as an example of autopoietic (or cybernetic) principle. Similarly, the interpretative systems begin to multiply, the ones that provide possible interpretations (understanding?). With the rising number of possible interpretations the right interpretation becomes unimportant. The inflation devalues all the interpretations. Then it became interesting to do the most radical reduction, simplification (abstraction) of installation and also the de-authorization. System should be open for inhabiting (apropriation) and interpretation. The autorship would then be the authorship of the thought model (concept; preliminary thought process) and the authorship of the work (invested) in the material part of installation - the two are pretty much one and the same. It all had echoes, but it remained remote and far-fetched for the audience, which in any case could never grasp any meaningful part of it (consume it). So, the interpretation and understanding is totally in the domain of the perceptor and his perceptive-reflectory apparatus. In fact, there was never any easy explanation - words always hanging somewhere between Heaven and Earth. The work: I combined just two modules: the so-called round table (scratch'o'phone!?), an unusual sound interface "enabling anyone to be a virtuoso" (because nobody can be a virtuoso). An element of demistification and a play-thing instead of an instrument. A player makes sound by moving the hands (essentially). The round table however makes a step sideways, since it not only de-mistifes, but also re-mistifies. Or should I say: re-symbolizes. The table is round and it has three records (which can be scratched), but no DJ can produce a decent electro-sound. So: while bringing forth a little bit of the known qualities, we take away the possibility to use it as such. Yes, it is a game of de-manipulation/manipulation, of de-mistification/mistification, of showing/hiding... The scene was minimal: in a relatively large dark gallery there was a lightly lit small podium, organized as a kind of command panel (the round table) with the point of viewing just in front. "The projector" was a kind of prism (a vessel with water) and the sound should make the waterwaves. The result of a projection from a directional light source should show on the screen on the ceiling of the gallery as a rainbow-edged wave patterns ("weavings"). Pity that idea was a disaster, since the prism was triangular, not allowing for the resonances. During the conceptual work the resonances were not desired, since they are a kind of "inertia", though they provide a simple means of selective amplification. As it was, the system would need prohibitively large amount of amplification. It is a simple fact of life (and a proof to omnipotence of the humans) that anything can be amplified to any measure, but one of the most important differences between science and art is: in art amplification is an ethical question. The installation hd its openning moment as a concert (it was not clear whether it was a concert, performance or something else). The gallery discourse (and the lack of a classic theatre podium) introduced its own vocabulary, but which didn't impose its own boundaries. As the "da camera" nature (the intimacy) of the installation was unappropriate for a social event, which the openning night is, I introduced the third module. I also eliminated the functionality of the second (since the "projector" didn't give any -> didn't work...). However in the view of re-mistification process I left the "projector" as a "designer's object", with its symbolic values (the pyramid) and aesthetic values (transparent, water filled and giving the light). It was a visual focus, stronger than that of the performers. As the third module Ludwig Zeininger, a sound artist from Graz/ Austria joined in. Ludwig used to play with a jazz band in Vienna (playing a computer!) and in a very interesting elektro-band Elektro Pathologic Consort. Ludwig performs with similar complex structures, but within a computer. Probably with different motives, but maybe not - we never discussed philosophy. In fact, we never discussed much of anything, and he didn't get any special instructions how to "plug in". When the focus is on "moment" the "structure" disapears... In a kind of a concert, where it is not about following the prescribed structure - the improvised concert, the secret lies in concentration and awareness of the presence of "the other". The first human reflex is to hear himself, which usually means that he/she wants to overpower the others. With improvised music (and in general: in communication) the opposite is necessary: to hear the other and allow the other to be heard. Concentration is needed to control the overflow of our own ego. Everything else is powerplay. Structure is unimportant - what counts is the the moment. So: the structure (of installation, gallery, our and audience's plus a dog's preconceptions, the gallery discourse, etc...) was rich in variety. It always is, whether artist wants it or not. Within the moment of the concert we were without any need for a specific aesthetic result. We simply reacted within the present multiplity of structures. Did it satisfy Ludwig, or not? He said it was ok. If ever reflecting it together, there would probably be large differences, but rebuilding moment as a structure is a useless job - it has nothing to do with the moment anymore - an altogether different quality. The only thing that was seriously missing was a moment of ecstacy. It will always be missing. It is not my job to provide fulfillment for the public. Who provides satisfaction? The one who provides wishes and yearnings should also provide fulfillment. Ludwig Zeininger used a software Pure Data (PD), of a very modular and interconnectable nature. His decision was to "listen" to the round table's frequency spectrum, and parallely extracts a number of kontroling values, which he uses within his system. However, his patch was not a passive system, but an autonomous one, able to fully take the initiative. (Borut Savski)