Future Shock Orchestra. A laboratory on instrument invention and augmentation

Chiara Percivati

Introduction

The evolution of acoustic instruments and the creation of new musical interfaces have been explored by individual artists, researchers, and research communities since the advent of electricity. Besides introducing technological enhancements, these innovations structurally redefine how musicians interact with their instruments, fostering new and diverse ways of performing and experiencing music. As musical artist Atau Tanaka states:

This area of research and creative practice, often labelled NIME after the international conference series New Interfaces for Musical Expression, goes beyond enhancing traditional instrument performance practice to looking at new paradigms for instrumental performance.¹

However, while the tradition of instrument-building and the related reflection on human-machine instrumentality are integral within the artistic research community, the same cannot be said for the context of music schools. Although core aspects of conservatory education – such as master-apprentice pedagogy,² the emphasis on disciplinary rather than interdisciplinary education,³ and a performance-oriented practice style⁴ – have been constructively questioned by recent pedagogical studies and academic work, the approach to instrumentality within these institutions remains rooted in the intensive study of crystallized instrumental forms. Classical music programmes primarily focus on the instruments of the symphonic orchestra, with limited inclusion of instruments from jazz and rock traditions.

While recognizing the fundamental role of high-quality instrumental training, valuing the cultural richness these institutions preserve, and appreciating the technological and technical expertise these instruments embody and require, I cannot, as a performer, overlook the fact that the technology, aesthetics, and technical values underpinning these instruments, as well as the human-machine relationships they represent, are more reflective of the society, aesthetics, and ethics of past centuries than those of today. Without delving into debates on the potential artistic depletion of these traditional instruments, which lie beyond the scope of this discussion, we must ask: How can we, as a research community and as educational institutions, avoid the risks of stagnation and self-referentiality without incorporating critical reflections on instrumental thinking into our curricula? To quote artist-researcher Paulo de Assis, “What is the role and function of a musician in contemporary society?”⁵ How can we remain relevant, embrace change, and drive innovation through our music-making?

I cannot, as a performer, overlook the fact that the technology, aesthetics, and technical values underpinning these [traditional acoustic] instruments, as well as the human-machine relationships they represent, are more reflective of the society, aesthetics, and ethics of past centuries than those of today.

As a matter of fact, while the practice of contemporary composers and performers often extends beyond traditional forms of “music making” – using various tools such as video editing, programming languages, communication protocols, physical computing, and more⁶ – current music education often falls short in fostering these diverse skills. Those who embrace multimedia and digital practices often resort to self-teaching, which typically involves learning online and engaging with maker communities outside the formal art school environment. Given this perceived gap between current reflections on instrumentality and the educational offerings, how can we integrate our curricula accordingly? What role should artistic research play in this transformation?

The interfaculty laboratory on instrument invention and augmentation “Future Shock Orchestra” therefore finds its place in the broader reflection currently underway in higher music education and artistic research, regarding the content of the curriculum and the same role of the schools of arts in a rapidly evolving world. This reflection highlights the importance of creating interdisciplinary spaces in higher art education, particularly at the master’s level, to cultivate hybrid art practices that draw on diverse skills and interests, viewing them as crucial for the further development of the arts.⁷ Parallel reflections in the field of design education underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations, which enhance students’ design skills by merging aesthetics with functionality while fostering an appreciation for the dynamic interaction between humans and technology, such as between musicians and their instruments.⁸

From this shared interest in interdisciplinary collaboration and critical reflection on human-instrument interactions, the Royal Conservatoire Antwerp (RCA) and the University of Antwerp (UA) established the Future Shock Orchestra in 2023. This laboratory aims to create a collaborative space where students can explore instrument invention and augmentation. Through this activity, the project aims to reflect on and question understandings of instrumentality from a technological and aesthetic perspective rooted in the present day, focusing on the digital and phygital⁹ dimensions of instrument-making and instrument performance. The goal is to integrate current international research reflections into our schools through practice, making them a core part of our students’ educational experience.

Future Shock Orchestra

The project emerged from the convergence of individual research projects, prior academic work on instrument making, and personal interests.¹⁰ It was first realized as one of the elective five-day workshops during the annual interdisciplinary Xplore Design Week (XDW) at UA and NextDoors at the RCA, which took place simultaneously.¹¹

The diverse team of tutors who organized the first edition of this event shared a common interest in instrument making, despite coming from different backgrounds and bringing varied expertise. The team included: Toon Chaerle, a master’s student in Product Development at UA, electronic musician, and keyboardist; Valerio Lorenzoni, an engineer with a PhD in Art Science from Gent University, postdoctoral researcher at KU Leuven, and saxophonist; Pascal Roobrouck, an engineer and maker specializing in hardware and firmware development; Jouke Verlinden, professor in the Department of Product Development at UA and specialist in Augmented Fabrication and human-centred design; and myself, Chiara Percivati, a clarinetist and artistic researcher focusing on instrument preparation and augmentation, and a doctoral researcher at UA and the RCA. Twelve bachelor students from the Department of Product Development at UA and two master’s students from the RCA participated in the first edition.

To facilitate communication among students with diverse musical backgrounds and experiences, we divided the large group into four smaller groups of three to four students each. This arrangement balanced the number of participants, tutors, and the practical challenges of building four instruments simultaneously within a limited time frame. In our initial plan, students from both institutions were to create, over the course of the workshop, an ensemble consisting of four augmented or newly created instruments, with the aim of performing a jam session on the final day. Given the novelty of the topic for students from both institutions, we prompted the creative process by defining four simple distinct musical “roles” that needed to be represented in our ensemble: melodic line, harmonic support, rhythmic structure, and sound sculpture/installation. Each heterogeneous group of students, comprising a mix of musicians and product developers, would then create or augment an instrument to fulfil one of these roles.¹²

During the planning phases of the workshop, we decided to prioritize open-source solutions for selecting software and hardware whenever possible. This choice reflected not only an implicit ethical stance but also allowed us to tap into large online communities and access numerous examples of work that could be readily adapted to our needs. This approach saved us from having to code everything from scratch – a task that would have required additional time and skills from the students within a necessarily limited time frame. For the audio software, we chose the visual programming language Pure Data; for hardware, we adopted the Arduino microcontroller boards – commonly used for hardware prototyping and interactive installations – and Daisy, which is specialized in audio applications.

Regarding input devices – those that capture physical phenomena and send data into the system – we curated a list of affordable sensors to enable the creation or enhancement of instruments. These included motion and position sensors, pressure sensors (in various forms such as squares, ribbons, and pads), distance sensors, and flex sensors. For audio equipment, we used resources from the Conservatoire, supplemented with contributions from the team and the students. These included different sorts of microphones, speakers, mini-speakers, transducers, and mixers. Finally, to allow for the augmentation of existing instruments, students were invited in the workshop call to bring instruments they were willing to use for our work. We received an old electric guitar and a low-cost violin – two instruments that had previously been used in hacking experiments and that their owners were willing to modify again.

To offer students a comprehensive product design experience within the limited time frame of five (albeit intense) working days, we structured our workshop around the four traditional phases of the Design Thinking Process: exploration, ideation, realization, and evaluation.

The workshop began with a full day dedicated to exploring the field of interactive and augmented instruments. We discussed the aesthetic and technical elements underpinning this approach and provided tangible inspiration by showcasing the work of various artists and makers in the field. All available materials – hardware, software, and audio – were introduced and tested, and a shared online board was set up for resource sharing and brainstorming. This ensured that all essential information was collected and easily accessible to everyone in the workshop.

On the second day, students began the ideation process for the instruments of the Future Shock Orchestra. After gathering informally around shared interests and concepts, they split into four official groups in the afternoon. Each group was responsible for developing an instrument fitting one of the previously defined categories or “roles”. The following descriptions aim to detail the phases of ideation, realization, and (unfortunately brief) evaluation that each of the instruments underwent during their development.

+++

Electro Strad:

The concept behind the Electro Strad is that its position determines the sound timbre. With the strings removed, this augmented violin plays different sound banks through a speaker: a violin sound bank when played traditionally on the shoulder, a cello sound bank when held vertically in front of the performer, and a guitar sound bank when played like a guitar. Initially, we planned to create various sounds using Pure Data, modulating them in real-time via the Daisy Pod¹³ with a ribbon sensor and a pressure sensor on the violin’s neck, connected to pitch and loudness, and a gyroscope to detect the instrument’s position. However, due to time constraints, we simplified the design by switching from Daisy to Arduino and replacing the gyroscope with a simple push button to switch between sound banks. A custom mount for the Arduino, and an extension for the neck, to support the two sensors, were 3D printed.

+++

Pulldown Guitar:

The Pulldown Guitar is an electric guitar augmented with a built-in synthesizer on its sixth string, while the five higher strings retain their traditional functionality. To create this instrument, the students attached a series of resistors along the guitar’s sixth string. A Daisy Pod, integrated into the guitar’s circuitry, measures the electrical resistance at each fret, allowing different frequencies to be generated through an oscillator based on the finger’s position on the string. The name “Pulldown Guitar” reflects the instrument’s working mechanism: pressing the sixth string alters its electrical resistance, effectively “pulling down” specific resistive values to control the synthesizer. These synthesized frequencies are routed to a separate audio channel, keeping the main output dedicated to the unaltered sound of the five higher strings. For enhanced control, a knob and a ribbon sensor were added, enabling the performer to adjust parameters such as pulse rhythm and resonance frequency in real time.

+++

Rhythmic Table:

Inspired by the workings of a vinyl record player, the students designed the Rhythmic Table with a similar concept in mind. Instead of a stylus reading grooves, this device features a distance sensor mounted on a lateral shaft that measures the distance to objects on the spinning plate. As the plate rotates, this distance changes, creating a dynamic sonic “silhouette” of the objects being used. The turntable’s speed is controlled manually by the performer using a handle, influencing the rhythm of the generated sounds. The initial design was 3D modelled, and the components were laser-cut from medium-density fibreboard. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the Rhythmic Table did not reach a fully functioning prototype stage, with only the mechanical parts completed by the end of the workshop.

+++

O-Scape:

This sound installation aimed to capture and elaborate on the distinctive sonic environment – or soundscape, as composer Raymond Murray Schafer terms it – of Building-O, the Product Development building hosting the workshop.¹⁴ The students selected our workspace and the adjacent server room as the primary sources of sound for the installation. Two microphones were strategically suspended in these rooms to capture the environmental sounds. The collected audio was then merged and processed live using Pure Data. The Pure Data patch – its graphical interface – was displayed on a large touchscreen, enabling the students to customize parameters quickly and intuitively during their performance on it.

Presentation of the work and reflections on the process

On the final day of the workshop, the students showcased their instruments in a public presentation. The audience, which included university students, professors, and researchers from the schools of arts, was introduced to the concepts behind each instrument. The students explained their design process, demonstrated how the instruments worked, and conducted simple performances. During this presentation, the Pulldown Guitar was also featured in a brief jam session, playing alongside a keyboard and an electronic wind instrument (EWI).

During our analysis of the process, some weaknesses in this first experience emerged. One significant issue was the unbalanced participation between the two groups, with only two conservatoire students working alongside twelve university students. Although their collaboration was consistently positive and attentive, feedback and observations revealed – perhaps inevitable – difficulties in understanding, articulating, and communicating experiences, facts, or ideas outside the students’ specific fields of expertise. The absence of musicians in two out of the four groups hindered the expected interaction of roles and competencies, highlighting, rather than bridging, the gap between the students’ methodological and aesthetic experiences.

Another limitation was the short duration of the workshop: while five days were just enough to develop basic functioning prototypes, more time was needed for testing, refining, practicing, and composing for these new instruments.

To address these issues, we decided to extend the second edition of the laboratory over a longer period, retaining the same focus and core ideas. To maximize conservatoire students’ engagement, we integrated the workshop into the broader educational context of a research practice module.¹⁵ This new structure not only established more equitable participation for students from both institutions but, more importantly, provided conservatoire students with additional time to explore the field before the workshop week and then to evaluate, practice, and perform with the instruments afterward.

The second edition

The second edition of the Future Shock Orchestra project spanned six months, from December 2023 to May 2024. During three introductory sessions held at the Conservatoire and dedicated to its students, four students began an informal exploration of the field of instrument invention and augmentation, guided by two of the workshop tutors. They learned the basics of Arduino and Pure Data, used various sensors to control simple sound synthesizers, and were introduced to the fundamentals of computer-aided design and 3D printing.

The goal of this introductory work, dedicated exclusively to conservatoire students, was not to provide comprehensive control over these technologies, especially within the limited time available, nor to completely bridge the technological gap between the two curricula. Instead, by raising awareness of the artistic and technological state of the art in this field, we aimed to stimulate the students’ creativity, performance sensitivity, and critical thinking.

As a result, some of the conservatoire students began reflecting on the types of prototypes they wanted to build and provided us with specific instructions on the materials (sensors and actuators) they needed. In response to their requests, the list of materials available for the second edition – otherwise similar to that of the previous edition – was expanded.

In February 2024, during the XDW week, twelve university students and four conservatoire students joined forces to design four brand-new instruments. Davide Paolillo, composer and electronic musician, replaced Pascal Roobrouck in the group of tutors. Divided into four groups – addressing similar numerical and practical considerations as the previous year, but this time working without predefined instrumental “roles” – the students developed the following prototypes.

+++

Vinotronic:

Vinotronic combines mechanical components, electronic control systems, and sensors to create a modern reinterpretation of the traditional glass harmonica. Unlike the classic instrument, which produces sound by rubbing a wet finger around the rim of a glass, Vinotronic generates tones through the friction of a fixed artificial finger against the rim of a rotating glass. The instrument consists of four upright goblets, each attached at its base to a rotating platform driven by a servomotor. The activation of the motor is controlled by the performer via a pressure sensor. The structural components, including the supports for the glasses and the rotating platforms, were constructed using rods, 3D printed parts, and laser-cut materials. The artificial finger was crafted from a rod, hot glue, and plaster, and then encased in the fingertip of a plastic glove. Initially, the four glasses were tuned to different pitches. To allow for pitch variation during performances, a 500ml syringe was later added to the setup, enabling precise adjustments by adding or removing water.

+++

Magnetar:

Magnetar is an electric guitar designed to be played without physical contact, using electromagnets instead. The guitar is fitted with three bass guitar strings, tuned to B♭1, E♭2, and F2. Three electromagnets are mounted on a laser-cut frame that envelops the neck of the guitar, hovering just above the strings. Controlled by an Arduino, these electromagnets set the strings in motion without the performer touching them. When a magnet is activated, the string is drawn toward it; when the magnet is turned off, the string’s elasticity causes it to bounce back. This rapid on-and-off action, repeated hundreds of times per second at specific frequencies determined by the Arduino code, induces vibration in the strings. To produce a full octave range (B♭3 to B♭4), the harmonics of the strings are utilized. For accidentals, two solenoids were added to the instrument to press and release a capo on the first fret. Interaction with the instrument is achieved through a keyboard interface, consisting of momentary push-button switches arranged in a piano-octave layout.

+++

Clevertouch:

The Clevertouch was designed to facilitate collective musical performance focusing on the theme of harmony. The instrument allows a group of three to four individuals, even those without any prior knowledge of harmony, to collaboratively play chords. At the heart of the instrument is a capacitive touch sensor connected to twelve metal bolts arranged in a circular pattern on the lid of a laser-cut wooden box, which conceals the wiring and circuitry. An Arduino processes the sensor data, mapping the inputs to MIDI parameters and sending MIDI messages via USB to a digital audio workstation (in this case, Ableton Live). The first sound bank we used was a chromatic scale spanning one octave, allowing performers to create chords by touching multiple bolts. One player could guide chord selection with a ribbon sensor, which illuminated the bolts corresponding to the fundamental note, third, and fifth. The Arduino was programmed to suggest a major chord, but performers were free to explore other harmonies. Throughout the project, the students experimented with various sound banks in Ableton, using the Clevertouch interface both collaboratively and individually.

+++

E-motion:

E-motion was designed to manipulate a performer’s amplified voice in real-time through body movement. The students created this device by integrating two light sensors into the upper sleeves of a jacket and embedding a contact microphone in a hidden chest pocket. An Arduino processes data from these sensors, converting the inputs into MIDI parameters that control effects in Ableton Live. During the workshop, the sensors were used to modulate the performer’s voice with effects like a vocoder – where the singer generates chords using a MIDI keyboard – and tremolo. Patting or scratching on the chest, or even simple movements, were detected by the contact microphone, becoming an integral part of the sound palette available. E-motion was used in both solo and collaborative performances. On some occasions, additional performers manipulated the light sensors with electric torches to intensify or diminish their effects. In other instances, different performers, including a dancer, wore the jacket, altering the singer’s voice through their independent movements.

+++

The second edition of the project marked a significant step forward in developing functioning prototypes, with all instruments undergoing testing and refinement during the workshop week. Collective rehearsals were organized over the last two days, providing opportunities to test the ensemble potential of this instrumental group. During the public presentation that concluded the XDW week, all instruments shared the stage for multiple collective shows, with different students alternating as performers. After the event, the physical parts of the instruments were stored in boxes and brought to the Conservatoire’s instrument store.

In April, the instruments were retrieved to feature in the opening concert of the Convergence seminar,¹⁶ where five students from both institutions performed with them. A session dedicated to musical rehearsals, in the form of semi-structured improvisations, followed in the ensuing days. During this time, new sounds, techniques, and sound banks were explored, and new objects (a syringe, an ordinary goblet, a stick covered with cloth, and a pitch tuner) were introduced into our setup.

We concluded the workshop in May with an open concert and presentation at the RCA, featuring all the instruments and the same group of students performing with them. Afterward, the instruments were dismantled. The electronic and mechanical parts were returned to the University or their owners, and the audio equipment was given back to the Conservatoire’s production office.¹⁷ The code survives on our laptops and in online repositories.¹⁸

Instruments, systems, and prototypes

Attempting to build a taxonomy of the instruments in the Future Shock Orchestra would be challenging, but some general observations can be made.¹⁹

All the instruments created or augmented by the students are, as Tanaka reflects, “open-ended systems comprised of multiple components.”²⁰ These are not autonomous, self-contained devices, but rather intricate setups that include input devices, mapping algorithms, sound synthesis engines, various source materials, audio equipment, tools, and connecting or supporting materials (maybe including a cheap violin).

Two of our instruments (Magnetar and Vinotronic) produce sound by directly or indirectly exciting an element of their structure (the strings and the rim of the glass). Three others control different sound banks (Clevertouch and Electro Strad) or sound synthesizers (Rhythmic Table) through sensors. Two (O-Scape and E-motion) process existing sounds captured via a microphone. Lastly, one instrument (Pulldown Guitar) combines physical and digital sound production to create its final output.

Just as the operation of these instruments is distributed across various components, the knowledge of their construction and functionality was often spread among the group members. During the work, some students focused on computer-aided design and 3D printing, others on sensors and Arduino, and still others on sound synthesis. None of them, however, had a complete understanding of all the details of the process. Keeping track of and recording all this distributed knowledge was at times a complex task for the tutors. In future iterations of the workshop, structural strategies to collect this data will require further reflection.

For a performer, becoming familiar with this extensive setup also involves learning how to quickly assemble one’s “instrument” to perform on it. However, the time required to set up an acoustic violin is incomparable to that needed to gather materials (often stored in different locations), connect them, and finally get an Electro Strad ready to play. During the second edition of the workshop, the students had the opportunity to familiarize with this process by repeatedly reassembling their instruments for a series of rehearsals and concerts. Setting up and dismantling their instruments multiple times (four in total) helped the students become more familiar with their equipment and speed up the process. On the other hand, this revealed the technical fragilities of our prototypes, with some sensors breaking and connections loosening through use, requiring fixes during rehearsals or right before concerts.

Throughout the workshop week, these prototypes transition from being mere “things” to becoming “instruments,” gaining proper names from their inventors. The names, driven by the students’ creativity, provide technical insight into the instrument’s function (Pulldown Guitar, Magnetar), establish a connection with existing instruments (Electro Strad, Rhythmic Table, Pulldown Guitar, Magnetar) and objects (Vinotronic), evoke the performative strategy employed (E-motion, Clevertouch), or describe the sound source (O-Scape).

As mentioned earlier, the instrumental prototypes have been dismantled at the end of every edition. This decision was driven by practical considerations, such as the lack of dedicated storage space within our institutions, the need to reuse the hardware components for other educational activities, or the claims of individual owners. However, the deliberately limited longevity of the instruments is a critical element in the long-term discussion of the performance strategies and artistic potential of these specific prototypes. As interaction designer Rodrigo Medeiros and his co-authors note:

The impact of an instrument is understood as how it has helped to create new music genres, new playing styles, outstanding artworks. The problem is that this takes a lot of time, cannot be planned in advance and depends on lots of variables, including cultural ones.²¹

The six months currently allocated to the project are certainly insufficient to establish what Medeiros calls in another passage the “virtuous cycle related to the (development of a) repertoire, the demonstrations, and the (making of an) instrument.” A longer ‘planned’ persistence – while not guaranteeing a prototype’s artistic potential or success – would be a necessary pre-condition for further technical refinement, enabling “sophisticated, fine-grained, and subtle control of input gestures with their correspondence in sound output.” This would also allow performers more time for extensive training.

From a broader perspective, however, the ephemeral nature of these prototypes is described as ordinary and is willingly accepted by the vast majority of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) performers, as documented by music scholar Fabio Morreale and fellow researchers: “As opposed to traditional musical instruments, which have often been subject to centuries-long processes of redesign and refinement, the infancy of NIMEs results in a limited possibility to develop virtuosity.” ²² While virtuosity is likely still to be attainable with these instruments, given sufficient training, the real question is whether the traditional notion of virtuosity remains a meaningful lens through which to view the instruments and practices. As one of Morreale’s interviewees put it, “It is not the goal of practice with this instrument. To think about virtuosity would be to miss the point of what the instrument has to offer.” The notion of “vulnerable virtuosity,” as proposed by composer and performer Molly Joyce, offers a compelling framework for rethinking virtuosity in performance practices. By moving beyond a universal – and inevitably flawed – concept of physical virtuosity, this approach advocates for a more inclusive and diverse understanding of skill in instrumental performance. At its core, vulnerable virtuosity

While virtuosity is likely still to be attainable with these instruments, given sufficient training, the real question is whether the traditional notion of virtuosity remains a meaningful lens through which to view the instruments and practices.

Encourages a widening understanding of what virtuosity can signify, realize, and magnify, cultivating what is curious, authentic, and at the core of art-making – a fundamental self-expression beyond comparison and not easily replicated and a virtuosity true to oneself.²³

The instruments of the Future Shock Orchestra are prototypes – “exploratory tools created by and for performers, (…) constantly in development and almost never in a finite state.”²⁴ These instruments expand our understanding of instrumental performance by extending “note control to process control,”²⁵ while challenging the relationship we, as human performers, have established over long periods of training with our chosen machines – our instruments. From a performer’s perspective, working with and through prototypes – tools that are imperfect and impermanent by design – liberates us from the counterproductive obsession with perfection, prioritizing instead progressive learning through experiential activities. Our instruments, then, cease to be mere “objects of control” and become “objects of thought,”²⁶ through which we can transform questions into experiences.

The value of these prototypes lies not in the instruments themselves, but in the experiences they generate, the knowledge they unlock, the new questions they raise, the fun they provide, and the social interactions they foster. As one musician remarked when discussing their prototype, “This was not our initial idea, but it’s fun to do it. You know, you start to play around with this stuff. (…) It’s like an instrument, but also a bit of a toy.”

Interdisciplinarity among departments

Through the Future Shock Orchestra laboratory, students from our two institutions explore artistic and technological practices at the intersection of our disciplines. By collaborating hands-on in prototyping and engaging with the performative strategies these new instruments entail, they gain the opportunity to understand the logic and technical language of each other’s fields and to foster a common reflection that can emerge between disciplines.²⁷

By creating an educational framework for these explorations and reflections, we aim to instil in students the confidence and curiosity necessary to delve into these (and other) unexplored configurations, fostering their ability to collaborate on shared and integrated questions – a process crucial for the development of “new knowledge, understandings, and new skills.”²⁸

As De Assis puts it:

Under global historical conditions that decenter the Western model, and in the face of the increasing digitization of performances, compositions, and music archives, novel concepts and innovative practices grounded in artistic practice and research are highly required, especially given the current need for research-based curricula in higher education institutions. Dialogue and collaboration between artists, music schools, universities, and arts-based research centers will be central to guarantee inter- and transdisciplinarity, enhancing the complementarity of knowledge production, and fostering the efficiency of knowledge transfer.²⁹

Reflecting on some of the practical elements of this interdisciplinary approach, interdisciplinarity also meant that the involved institutions shared spaces and technological resources. In the current workshop plan, the different phases of creation and performance take place in both institutions, depending on the local availability of tools, machines, resources, and performance spaces – there is no need for duplicate equipment when it can be used collaboratively.

From a performer’s perspective, working with and through prototypes – tools that are imperfect and impermanent by design – liberates us from the counterproductive obsession with perfection, prioritizing instead progressive learning through experiential activities.

Space requires special consideration in this reflection, as the division and organization of spaces, by embodying the “logics,” working habits, and exhibition formats of our institutions, have the potential either to foster a cohesive environment or to inhibit a truly collective form of thinking. If a liminal, in-between concept needs to be explored, a flexible space representing all the groups involved will be required: modifiable over time, promoting both focused individual work and collaborative activities, and allowing discussions, prototyping, and music creation to flow freely.

Achieving numerical balance between the different groups was another crucial element in establishing truly interdisciplinary collaboration, to avoid the process being predominantly guided by the working logic of the discipline that was numerically more represented. We are still far from an actual balancing of disciplines, but we have observed and anticipate a positive trend in the participation of students from both institutions.

The Future Shock Orchestra started its third edition in December 2024. Over the first two editions, it evolved from a five-day workshop into a longer research practice module. Our hope is to develop it into an interfaculty laboratory on instrument invention, augmentation, and performance, involving students, artists, and researchers. Much like our instruments, we are prototyping the project itself, refining it with each edition.

From an educational and research point of view, working and thinking through prototypes is a “win-win” kind of experience. This hands-on approach is not really about perfecting a final product, but rather about embracing the learning that comes from each attempt. As designer and educator Scott Witthoft suggests:

A prototype might appear to ‘fail’ in the sense that if it was intended as a final product, it didn’t correctly do its job. However, the value and ultimate success of failing with a prototype comes from transforming an early outcome into learning, which is not bound to the same spectrum of correct or incorrect or even the prototype itself. Fail well by making sense of early outcomes, asking What did I learn and how did I learn it?³⁰

Acknowledgements

This laboratory is a common endeavour between our two institutions. I thank the Product Development Department of the University of Antwerp, the Research Department at the Royal Conservatoire Antwerp, and the Production and Communication Offices at the Royal Conservatoire Antwerp for their support throughout our work.

None of the prototypes here presented and none of the reflections that emerged from our work would have been possible without the collective effort of our group of tutors, which I gratefully acknowledge: Valerio Lorenzoni, Toon Chaerle, Jouke Verlinden, Pascal Roobrouck, and Davide Paolillo. I particularly thank Jouke Verlinden for his vision, encouragement, and support for this initiative. I thank all the students who took part in the project with passion and dedication. Finally, I would like to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and valuable critique.

+++

Chiara Percivati

is a clarinetist, performer, and researcher. Her artistic work and research focus on exploring, questioning, and expanding the symbiotic relationship between performer and instrument. She conducts research in the field of instrument preparation and augmentation as a PhD candidate at the Orpheus Institute and the University of Antwerp, and as a researcher at the Royal Conservatoire Antwerp.

chiara.percivati@ap.be

Footnotes