AVOL is an interactive audiovisual project created by Portuguese artists Video Jack that allows for integrated musical and visual expression on the web. It contains 7 Interactive Audiovisual Objects (IAVOs) that each have 4 sets combining abstract animations and sound loops. While playful and engaging, AVOL had limitations like a small amount of content. A later project, AV Clash, addressed these issues with more sounds, visuals, and audio manipulation options, though some found AVOL easier to use.

1. AVOL:
Towards an Integrated Audiovisual Expression
ISEA
Istanbul, 14.9.2011
Nuno N. Correia
Aalto University, Media Lab Helsinki

2. Introduction
• AVOL (AudioVisual Online) is an interactive
audiovisual project for the Web,
• by Portuguese new media artists Video Jack (Nuno N.
Correia and André Carrilho).
• It aims to allow for an integrated musical and visual
expression, in a way that is playful to use and
engaging to experience.
• It was released in December 2007, and further
developed until 2010.
• Link: http://www.videojackstudios.com/avol/

3. Introduction
• AVOL is one of the 4 projects chosen by the
Portuguese Ministry of Culture for their net art portal.
• It follows upon previous work by Video Jack, such as
Heat Seeker (2006).
• In previous Video Jack projects, the sound element
was manipulated separately from the visual element.
• In AVOL, Video Jack aimed to integrate the two
elements – audio and image – under the same
application and the same interface.

4. Introduction – Presentations
• In 2008, AVOL was presented as installation at the
following festivals:
– Cartes Flux, Espoo;
– Re-New, Copenhagen;
– Create, London;
– Live Herring, Jyväskylä.
• And as performance (also in 2008) at these festivals:
– Abertura Festival, Lisbon;
– Electro-Mechanica Festival, St. Petersburg.

5. Introduction – Recent Developments
• In 2010, 3 of the 28 audio loops were updated.
• Also in 2010, video captures of AVOL were uploaded
to Video Jack video websites (YouTube and Vimeo),
and embedded on the Video Jack website.
• AVOL music was also composed and embedded.
• These additional media elements are meant to
provide complementary ways for users to experience
the project, and also to understand its possibilities.
• http://www.videojackstudios.com/projects/avol/

6. Introduction – Contextualization
• AVOL can be contextualized with other works that
have explored integrated audiovisual expression.
• In the early 20th century, Oskar Fischinger and
Walther Ruttman created visual music films in
Germany – a combination of tinted animation with live
music (Moritz 1997).
• John Whitney is “widely considered ‘the father of
computer graphics’” for his explorations of computer-
generated manipulation of visuals through
mathematical functions (Paul 2003, p. 15).

7. Introduction – Contextualization
• Golan Levin is one of the artists that have explored
audiovisual creative expression, in works such as
Audiovisual Environment Suite (AVES) (1998-2000),
– “an interactive software that allows for the creation and
manipulation of simultaneous visuals and sound in real
time” (Paul 2003, p. 133).
• In 2006, Nintendo released Electroplankton, by artist
Toshio Iwai,
– a series of aquatic worlds “filled with different species of
plankton that can produce sound and light when you
interact with them” (Davis 2006).

8. Design

9. Design – IAVOs
• Visuals and music, together with the graphical user
interface (GUI) that controls them, are grouped in 7
IAVOs (Interactive AudioVisual Objects).
• Each IAVO contains 4 audiovisual options (“sets”),
allowing users to create diversified combinations of
music and visuals.
• The visuals consist of abstract concentric vector
animations that are audio-reactive.
• The reactivity to each sound is based on the scaling
of the respective animation proportionally to the
sound amplitude.

10. Design – Sound
• The sound loops were grouped into coherent entities
as much as possible, similarly to band members on a
stage.
• Four of the loops are rhythmical (bass drum, snare
drum, hats and clicks) and the remaining three
melodic (keyboard, guitar, strings).
• All loops have same tempo (120 bpm) and the same
duration (16 seconds).
• They were composed with the purpose of being
coherent and harmonious independently of the active
combination of sounds.

11. Design – Graphics
• Each of the 4 “sets” of animations has its color palette
and type of shape.
• There was an interpretative differentiation according
to the nature of the corresponding sound.
• Despite these nuances, the animations were designed
to be harmoniously interchangeable.
• The use of vector graphics ensures that the
animations are scalable and react fluidly to sound.
• The animations, although abstract, suggest natural
shapes.

12. Design – Interaction
• The four white petal-shaped buttons trigger each of
the four loops associated with the IAVO.
• When users activate one of the loops, new elements
appear on the IAVO’s interface:
– three “traffic light” buttons (stop, auto and solo),
– and a draggable “ring” encompassing the “petal” buttons,
– Incorporating minus and plus volume buttons.
• The “petal” aesthetics of IAVO buttons is meant to be
harmonious with the animations, which also resemble
flowers.

13. Design – Interaction
IAVO diagram

14. Design – Comparisons
• The animations in AVOL resemble John Whitney’s
floral compositions:
– “all colors move into the ring simultaneously from all sides,
forming circles within circles all scintillating smoothly in a
floral configuration” (Youngblood 1970, p. 220).
• There is also some resemblance between AVOL’s
flower-like objects and the plankton in
Electroplankton, even more apparent when collisions
occur.

15. Evaluation

16. Evaluation – Initial Conclusions
• The author considers that AVOL was successful in
terms of playfulness and engagement, due to:
– the IAVO approach – entities composed of UI elements
controlling sound and audio-reactive animations;
– the harmony, coherence and mutual agreement of the
audiovisual content.

17. Evaluation – Initial Conclusions
• However, the author detects several shortcomings in
AVOL:
– a limited amount of sounds and animations to interact with;
– few audio manipulation options.
• These shortcomings limit the versatility and
expressiveness of AVOL.
• A new project was released in 2010 to address these
issues: AV Clash (http://www.avclash.com).

18. Evaluation – AV Clash
• AV Clash connects to Freesound.org, retrieving nearly
240 sounds from the online database.
• It contains a larger number of animations (96).
• Audio manipulation capabilities include audio effects
('echo' and 'filter') and sound trimming.
• The sound character is substantially different.
• But there are several similarities between both, mainly
in terms of visuals and interaction design
• The number of IAVOs in AV Clash was reduced to 4.

19. Evaluation – Questionnaire
• In the first half of 2011, an online questionnaire was
setup to evaluate AV Clash.
• The questionnaire contained closed and open-ended
questions, and was answered by 22 anonymous
respondents.
• It included questions comparing AV Clash with AVOL.

20. Evaluation
Did you spend more time
interacting with AV Clash or with
AVOL?
1
5 AV Clash
AVOL
Approximately
the same time
16

21. Evaluation
• Why did you spend more time interacting with AV
Clash than AVOL? [16 users; multiple choice question]
– 73% [11]: larger amount of manipulation options;
– 40% [6]: larger amount of content;
– 47% [7]: other.

22. Evaluation
Did you find the possibility of accessing more
sounds and visuals in AV Clash appealing,
compared with AVOL?
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1-Not 2 3 4 5-Very
appealing at appealing
all

23. Evaluation
Comparing to AVOL, are the additional audio
manipulation options in AV Clash interesting?
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1-Not 2 3 4 5-Very
interesting at interesting
all

24. Evaluation
Comparing the different sound and music
approaches of AV Clash and AVOL, which one
contributes to a more enjoyable experience?
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1-AVOL, much 2 3 4 5-AV Clash,
more much more

25. Evaluation
• Why did you prefer the sound and music approach of
AVOL? [7 users; open-ended question]
– synchronization of loops;
– curation of sounds;
– inclusion of percussive elements.

26. Evaluation
Which is easier / more intuitive to use, AV
Clash or AVOL?
6 AV Clash
8
AVOL
They are on the
same level regarding
intuitiveness
8

27. Evaluation
• Why is AVOL easier to use? [8 users; open-ended
question]
– 6 users mention the simpler interface and fewer options.

28. Evaluation
Which project gives you a higher
feeling of creativity?
AV Clash
2
AVOL
5
They both gave
13 me the same
feeling of
creativity
2
I didn't get any
feeling of
creativity from
either

29. Evaluation
• Why does AV Clash give you a higher feeling of
creativity? [13 users; open-ended question]
– 7 mention more manipulation options,
– 1 mentions more variety in sound.

30. Evaluation
• Why does AVOL give you a higher feeling of
creativity? [2 users; open-ended question]
– One user mentions that the sounds "fit together nicely", and
that switching between them created interesting results.

31. Evaluation
• Why did you get the same / no feeling of creativity
from either? [7 users; open-ended question]
– One user considers that both projects shape the sound and
visuals too much to allow for his/her own creativity,
– and another mentions that the projects are "too structured".

32. Conclusions

33. Conclusions
• The results show that users value the additional
content and functionalities of AV Clash.
• These additions contribute to a greater engagement
than its predecessor.
• However, extra manipulation options and added
content come at a cost in terms of usability.
• Moreover, AVOL comes close to AV Clash in terms of
sonic enjoyment.

34. Conclusions
• Therefore, even though the majority of respondents
favor AV Clash,
• there seems to be a significant number of users who
prefer a simpler project such as AVOL,
• with fewer options and content,
• but with curated and more harmonious sounds.
• A possible future path could concentrate more on
playfulness and intuitiveness, targeting these users.

35. Conclusions
• Some of the users are dissatisfied with the creative
and expressive potential of both projects,
– considering that they are "too structured" and shape the
end result too much.
• Further developments in this line of projects could
address these limitations,
– expanding the manipulation options, content, and
customization possibilities.

36. Conclusions
• Personal views on the future of related projects:
• In future developments, emphasis should be given to
recording and sharing capabilities.
– Net art audiovisual projects should take advantage of their
online presence to facilitate the recording and distribution
of user-generated content, namely by leveraging social
media.
• Multi-touch mobile devices are attractive for future
interactive audiovisual projects,
– since they allow for a more direct and flexible manipulation
of visuals than a pointing device interface.

37. References
• Davis, R., 2006. Electroplankton Review. GameSpot, January.
http://www.gamespot.com/ds/puzzle/electroplankton/
review.html, referenced 22/08/2011.
• Moritz, W., 1997. The Dream of Color Music and the
Machines that Made it Possible. In Animation World
Magazine, Apr. 1997. http://www.awn.com/mag/issue2.1/
articles/moritz2.1.html, referenced 22/08/2011.
• Paul, C., 2003. Digital Art. Thames & Hudson, London.
• Youngblood, G., 1970. Expanded Cinema. P. Dutton & Co.,
New York. http://www.vasulka.org/Kitchen/
PDF_ExpandedCinema/ExpandedCinema.html, referenced
22/08/2011.

38. Thank you!
Any questions?
www.nunocorreia.com
mail@nunocorreia.com
www.videojackstudios.com