Biomimicry in Electroacoustic Composition: Conceptual frameworks and prototypes

Abstract

Biomimicry shifts focus away from anthropocentric design approaches and encourages practitioners to develop a sensitivity to the interconnectedness of natural systems and their resultant potentiality as musical forms. Embracing the concepts of biomimicry necessitates a perspectival transformation from human authorship towards a reciprocal partnership with nature that stresses sustainable technological innovation in artistic expression. The need to solve design challenges in harmony with a broader ecological context means that biomimicry represents a new form of environmentally attuned sonic practice that is both communicative and interpretative of systems operating outside everyday human experience. This research employs the biomimetic process to unravel and respond to issues related to the development of form and structure at the locus of compositional practice. Furthermore, it utilises these insights to generate new knowledge through the activities of this practice and the novel insights apprehended through the triangulation of science, nature and music. Finally, it uses biomimicry to impact the compositional trajectory practically, extending beyond metaphor or representation, and offers a glimpse into realms that are more than music, more than human.

1. INTRODUCTION

The natural world’s influence on composition can take many forms, from associative, representative, anecdotal and contextual to the integration and abstraction of biological and meteorological features. There are seemingly limitless possibilities on how artists answer the question of how to compose with nature. Biomimicry approaches composing with nature from a different angle, seeking answers to compositional challenges by emulating and abstracting solutions and strategies present in natural systems and structures. As such, it provides a straightforward methodology that looks to nature for solutions yet permits significant artistic freedom in the scale and application of these ideas within the compositional process. It forges an indissoluble commitment between the composer and systems operating outside the quotidian realm of human experience. The influence of nature, therefore, permeates the composition process at various levels without necessitating explicit communication about its role to the listener or its function within the musical narrative or structure. In this way, entirely abstract compositions can embody the same intrinsic engagement between the composer and the environment found in context-driven approaches to composition, such as soundscape and acoustic ecology. Furthermore, as biomimicry is an established methodology outside the sphere of electroacoustic music, it is an ideal vehicle to translate and communicate scientific ideas from fields far removed from human perception, such as nanotechnology, in ways that do not require direct mapping of quantifiable data onto sonic parameters.

This research explores biomimicry within the context of electroacoustic composition, seeking to establish foundational conceptual frameworks and preliminary prototypes that unveil the potential of biomimicry in addressing compositional challenges. The discussion begins with a broad overview of biomimicry, its core principles as an ecological design methodology, and its potential as a novel composition device. A discussion tracing the paths of intersection and divergence between biomimicry and other environmentally attuned sonic practices will lead a brief discussion of Daniel Blinkhorn’s 2023 composition, cdot, which uses biomimetic techniques to translate scientific concepts into musical materials and structural elements. Through this exploration, the research contributes insights into the intersection of biomimicry and electroacoustic composition, offering a preliminary understanding of its application in artistic expression and scientific inquiry.

2. BIOMIMICRY

Biomimicry constitutes an environmentally inspired design methodology that produces innovative, sustainable solutions that emulate the refined functional logic inherent in organic systems. Pioneered by Janine Benyus (1997), this movement distinguishes itself within the broader bio-inspired design sphere through active engagement with nature throughout the creative process rather than merely extracting and exploiting biological data and resources. Furthermore, it seeks to overcome human challenges by scrutinising the practical elegance of natural comportments and structures, instilling symbiosis between humans, technology and the environment.

Biomimicry distinguishes itself within ecological design disciplines through a functionalist lens. It aims to generate practical solutions to known problems by creating operative challenges that examine how organisms use context-specific biological strategies to fulfil the diverse functional needs necessary for survival. Furthermore, biomimicry is not reductive and does not treat biological strategies independent of the settings, conditions and systems in which they operate. Andrea Borsari (2017) states that no singular definition encapsulates biomimicry in its totality – it remains an empirical praxis requiring regularisation around core principles to serve societal needs properly.

2.1. The biomimicry design process

The official website ¹ of the Biomimicry Institute serves as a comprehensive repository intended to integrate biomimicry into cultural discourse and advance sustainable systems design by fostering the dissemination of ideas, designs and strategies derived from nature. As part of this mission, the Biomimicry Institute distils the biomimicry methodology into a six-stage cyclical process, illustrated in Figure 1 and summarised in the following text.

Figure 1. The biomimicry design spiral taken from https://toolbox.biomimicry.org/methods/process/ (accessed 10 January 2023).

Initiating the biomimicry design process involves comprehensively examining the problem’s context, emphasising potential solutions and their anticipated impact and functionality. This initial stage prioritises the development of an understanding and awareness of the issues associated with the problem, eschewing specific design details or the determination of the final product. Following the contextualisation of the problem, a pivotal shift occurs in the biologising phase, which involves reframing the problem within a biological context. This reframing becomes crucial in seeking inspiration from natural strategies to address design-specific issues.

The subsequent discovery phase thoroughly explores and collects information about natural models operating within the same context as the envisioned solution. This investigative stage lays the foundation for abstracting biological strategies into design-centred approaches. This abstraction describes the underlying biological processes without relying on biologically specific terminology.

The emulation phase is an exploratory process to uncover natural blueprints that can inform the design. The culmination of the design process lies in the evaluation stage, involving rigorous assessment to gauge how the design concepts align with the predefined criteria and constraints of the design challenge. Iterative refinement and revisiting preceding steps may be necessary to yield a conceptually sound and practically viable solution.

The six stages of this process are deliberately broad and open to significant interpretation. Therefore, designing a specific methodology incorporating a more robust regulative biomimetic language that is transferable across musical domains is an area that needs further research.

2.2. Biomimicry, problem-solving and electroacoustic composition

The biomimicry process is principally a problem-solving methodology that uses clear cyclic steps to plan and realise stated design goals by mimicking biological functions. Consequently, the application of this procedure presupposes the existence of a problem requiring a solution. However, the outcomes of electroacoustic composition, as with all art forms, represent novel apprehensions (Scrivener 2002) rather than solutions to known problems, and any such problems are usually ill-structured (Pearce and Wiggins 2002). Therefore, although the creative artefacts generated through compositional practice do not represent answers to known problems, problem-solving forms an integral component of the practice-based research paradigm. John Young (2015) believes that composers identify and define compositional problems at different stages of the creative process. Young states that composers draw on their theoretical, speculative and empirical work from within the creative activity to overcome such problems and develop their criteria for ‘rightness’.

The prototypes developed in this pilot research provide choices for structuring and sequencing sound objects and events by mimicking aspects of predefined natural systems and processes at differing scales. In this way, it operates similarly to the compositional approach described by Manuella Blackburn (2011), who translates Denis Smalley’s (1997) illustrative and analytic spectromorphological vernacular into practical compositional devices that guide the composer’s choices from the outset and attempt to distil and cultivate a set of creative potentialities from the infinite choices available at the commencement of a new composition.

2.2.1. Examples of biomimetics in electroacoustic composition

Most applications of biomimicry currently concentrate on the engineering and design domains, with a paucity of discussions that interrogate its musical potential. However, varied interpretations and applications of biomimicry exist in electroacoustic music.

While not embodying a problem-solving paradigm or formulating an abstracted and formalised compositional framework, Leah Barclay’s (2014) biomimetic approach in creating Cyprus Trilogy encapsulates a creative process that engages with nature directly and profoundly. This technique diverges from traditional methods, which use natural resources to compose music that reflects specific environments. Instead, Barclay’s immersive experience within the Noosa Biosphere Reserve precipitates a transformative shift in perception and a heightened awareness, enabling her to assimilate an array of non-sonorous phenomena – such as the arrangement of foliage, the dynamic patterns of the wind and the intricate lines, textures and forms of tree bark – into her compositional language. This integrative process fosters a symbiotic interaction between the artist and the environment, positioning natural processes not merely as a muse but also as foundational elements of the compositional framework. Barclay’s biomimetic approach redefines the artist’s role, casting them as active participants in a reciprocal interchange with the environment. This dialogue informs and is embedded within the fabric of her compositional output, ensuring that naturally occurring patterns and structures are enmeshed into the musical narrative rather than superficially appended as thematic material. She uses biomimicry to adjust her sonic practice to the subtleties of the environment rather than creating works about the landscape, which echoes a core biomimetic principle of engaging with nature, not extracting and exploiting its resources.

A framework that employs Bernie Krause’s niche hypothesis (Krause 1993, 2012) as a biomimetic model exists in McConaghy (2021). This approach strategically structures and disseminates sounds to mirror the general acoustic and spatial partitioning observed in the natural environment. By embracing biomimicry, elements of soundscape composition, acoustic ecology and ecoacoustics directly inform the spectral and spatial transformation of sound images. This technique uses natural models to emphasise spatial experience through a deliberate and ecologically informed compositional approach. Figure 2 illustrates this biomimetic framework.

Figure 2. The biomimetic composition model employed by McConaghy (2021), which uses Krause’s Niche Hypothesis to unite aspects of acousmatic music, soundscape studies and ecoacoustics.

The distinct ways artists engage with biomimicry is an area for future research. Barclay, for instance, sees herself as an active participant in a reciprocal interchange with the environment. In contrast, McConaghy positions himself as an observer, using the niche hypothesis to inform his compositions. While these artists employ biomimicry and engage directly with nature, their integration methods, roles and degree of structure and context-dependency in their approaches vary. These differences underscore the versatility of biomimicry as a composition tool, offering a new modality to engage with and represent nature in electroacoustic composition.

3. RELATION OF BIOMIMICRY TO OTHER COMPOSITIONAL AESTHETICS

Biomimicry offers an alternative composition paradigm to forge connections between internal musical structure and external referents in ways that diverge from conventional composition techniques such as sonification. Rather than directly mapping extrinsic data to sound by arranging musical variables proportionately to input data, biomimicry abstracts principles from natural systems to structure and transform musical material creatively. Moreover, biomimicry emphasises the metaphorical emulation of natural morphological processes over the explicit representation of objective data. Milazzo et al. (2022) describe an interesting biomimetic sonification approach that reverses the traditional process by first mapping music to material. They use the similarities between the hierarchical structures in music and proteins to translate aspects of Bach’s Goldberg Variations into protein sequences. The designed proteins undergo a series of scientific transformations before being mapped back to musical parameters.

The distinction between biomimicry and sonification is not just a matter of semantics but also a fundamental difference in their respective purposes: biomimicry aims to innovate and solve challenges by emulating nature in ways that may or may not involve data representation. In contrast, musical sonification seeks to represent and communicate objective data in sonically interesting ways.

While the contextually immersive tradition of soundscape composition focuses on the communicative potential of sound and abnegates ex nihilo abstraction detached from contextual grounding (Truax 2001, 2012; Westerkamp 2002), biomimicry diverges and seeks generalised design strategies to abstract and translate natural structures into the musical domain. Despite the incongruous approach to abstraction, biomimicry and soundscape studies foster a shared appreciation of ecological sensitivity. The former prioritises ecological engagement through generalisation and abstraction, and the latter emphasises communication and the integration of complexity using, for example, site-specific field recordings and the composer’s introspections to catalyse and shape the composition trajectory.

Natasha Barrett (2021) notes the salience of the soundscape tradition, yet she posits that the current trajectory of soundscape composition gravitates towards a closed circuit of homogeneity and ephemerality. She attributes this phenomenon to the inherent constraints of relying solely on the composer’s observations and reflective insights to galvanise listener engagement and proffer musical structure. Barrett advocates integrating computational analysis alongside autoethnography to circumvent transient listener engagement and the potential occlusion of pertinent data. This approach shares similarities with Matthew Burtner’s (2005) ecoacoustic framework, which endeavours to understand natural environments through close perception and to derive musical procedures and events from abstracted ecological data.

Soundscape composition, ecoacoustics, and computational analysis inform practice by discerning patterns in extrinsic data – whether pre-composition, real-time performance, or portraying spatiotemporal experiences. Biomimicry offers a complementary approach that enables direct engagement with nature and obviates reliance on pre-existing material, such as site-specific field recordings. Accordingly, biomimicry transitions from extrinsic data mapping to developing intrinsic musical relationships modelled on generalised natural phenomena and, therefore, has the potential to overcome the reliance on personal reflections and the perceptual qualities and acoustic quantities embedded within recordings that form the primary musical materials in soundscape and acousmatic composition. However, it is critical to note that true mimesis of living ecosystems is impossible using acoustic parameters alone. Therefore, biomimicry in a musical context depends on metaphorical biologisation to discern innate structural processes. For instance, it is possible to create an elasticity of phrasing at different timescales using augmentation and diminution techniques based on the iterative patterns of leaf cells.

Another strength of the biomimetic approach is its ability to bridge the aesthetic divide between reductive and relative compositional philosophies by referencing and integrating nature’s complexity into the inner structure of acousmatic music. Barry Truax describes this relationship as the inner and outer complexity of music and highlights its importance to the composition process in the following:

The ideal situation, in my mind, is to have a continual flow of influence back and forth between the internal and external levels of the musical process, where each informs and enhances our understanding of the other. (Truax 1994: 179)

Truax’s ideal situation requires that external referents profoundly influence and shape the composer’s decisions, making it impossible to conceive of the music without this indelible impact. Biomimicry prioritises metaphorical biologisation and the emulation of aspects of natural processes over mimetic verisimilitude. Its generalised and abstracted models permit greater freedom in the processing, transformation, combination and diffusion of sound objects compared to anecdotal approaches structured on the referential qualities of sound. Nevertheless, the guiding conceptual orientation remains grounded in environmental engagement.

Moreover, biomimicry substantively imbues nature as the fulcrum of the creative process and heightens the connection to the environment beyond a source of external inspiration. It integrates ecological processes aesthetically and functionally, whereby natural systems become operative devices for intrinsically shaping material, structure and form through concretely instantiated biological metaphors. It can potentially transfer morphological strategies between biological and musical domains reciprocally. As such, it represents a compositional approach situated at the midpoint of Truax’s continuum.

4. BIOMIMICRY IN THE COMPOSITION OF CDOT

The composition of cdot took place during part of a residency undertaken by Daniel Blinkhorn and assisted by Nicholas McConaghy at the Sydney University Nano-Institute.

It demonstrates a context-dependent artistic application of biomimicry to augment scientific findings through electroacoustic music. It aims to articulate the role of biomimicry in the research on atmospheric water capture; Al-Khayat et al. (2017) provide a scientific articulation of this process. Crucially, the authors found shared ground with the science of the Advanced Capture of Water from the Atmosphere (ACWA) project through the concept of biomimicry. The ACWA initiative discussed how their research led them to consider the lotus effect (inspiration taken from the molecular composition of the lotus leaf) and how the Namib beetle from the Namib desert in Africa captured water in an incredibly arid, inhospitable environment. Accordingly, the composition balances scientific fidelity with artistic imagination and represents one possible approach to integrating biomimetics into the composition process.

4.1. Genesis, inspiration and composition of the work

The predominant configuration of cdot is designed to mimic a somewhat narrative-driven path utilised by the scientific process, from an experimental process in a laboratory to a functional, physical resource deployed within arid parts of the Australian outback.

Within the piece, various biomimetic considerations are employed (the use of patterns, texture density and spatial morphology, among other things) to form the DNA via a kind of sonic textile across the piece. In a more literal sense, the first section of the piece uses transformations of a drop of water to express dimensions of scale and size, as well as place (a laboratory) to evoke memory, forming a backdrop of narration surrounding research into how nature can inform the use of nanotechnology. Within the second section, field recordings are employed, including a small stream found deep within a forest ravine in the Blue Mountains, augmenting the sonic pallet found within the piece.

The resultant form of the composition straddles two distinct parts. The first articulates the initial inspiration of the ACWA and the building of nanostructures from the bottom-up, molecule-by-molecule via physical and chemical methodology in a nanoscale range (1 nm to 100 nm) via controlled manipulation of self-assembly surrounding atoms and molecules. This initial section evokes laboratory experimentation on a ‘nano’ scale, as various structures and molecular configurations bind, unfurl and fuse. This represents a metaphorically playful process and transforms a single drop of water from a field recording into a micro to macro nanoscopic playground of shapes and colours, all of which (from a sonic perspective) portray the manifold processes that nanoscientists attempted in achieving their desired outcome. The sonic contour of the first section mimics numerous attempts at molecular and chemical cohesion, often resulting in indeterminate, largely unsuccessful explorations where the scientists strive to galvanise techniques, test hypotheses and employ specific methodologies, many of which fail (or, in the case of the composition, a series of short, ultimately unsuccessful terminations of phrases). However, cohesion and bonding of chemical reactions slowly begin to take shape as various organisational principles become more successful. Mapping this trajectory, the composition of sonic elements also becomes more stable (viewed through the lens of, inter alia, metaphor and symbolism) as increasingly unconstrained sonorous activities unfold. Scientifically, this results in the replication of patterns and multitudinous iterations of microparticles and the successful implementation of larger-scale processes, all of which result in the development of new nano-polymer textiles for use ‘in situ’ within otherwise arid and desolate environments across the globe. As a result of this accumulation of water from the atmosphere, new ecosystems begin to emerge and thrive, surrounding the deployment of this unique innovation. The final section of the composition resembles a coda as the processes and sonorous activities harken back to the initial laboratory setting.

4.2. Prototyping of biomimetic methodology within the musical domain

Seven sound examples are provided alongside this article, tethering a small selection of the multitudinous possibilities when appropriating elements of biomimetics within compositional craft. As such, while these examples speak to specific aspects of the cross-pollination of biomimetics and compositional technique, as discussed earlier within the paper, the article’s purpose is to instantiate the possible rhizome of outcomes that can be achieved. Further, these exemplars represent the minutia of potentiality across the artistic and scientific divide and should be viewed as such. We will also present various selections as they appear chronologically across the lifecycle of the work (the full piece is a 16:20, surround sound composition).

Sound Example 1: extract from the opening section. Symbolically, this example is situated entirely within a nanoscience laboratory setting and serves to articulate the inquisitive, experimental and methodological approach inspired by the Namib beetles’ ability to channel water along a central conduit running along its spine, ultimately serving to hydrate the animal. Compositionally, the technique of glissandi is highly apparent as the creature’s exoskeleton generates a downward flow of moisture (certain liberties were taken compositionally, most ostensibly via upward glissandi, but the primary proponent was designed to be one of an arched accumulation/dispersal of energy, irrespective of upward or downward motion). Additionally, the concept of modulation (vacillating pitched material) and the use of aqueous timbral sonorities assisted in portraying the exploration and experimentation of water within the laboratory context. Further, the individual sound particles combine to generate entire, rudimentary phrases built from these particles (transformations from drops of water), and the existent pitch/specific frequency is mainly arbitrary, primarily serving the creative resolve of the composer.

Sound Example 2: within this example, a more intrepid exploration of materials begins to take shape as scientists and researchers develop more confidence in pursuing a unified, cohesive polymer comprising iterative patterns. As such, the piece begins to exhibit a more directed, iterative and purposeful motion-growth process.

Sound Example 3: in this example, a more confident and directed approach materialises, with a clearly unified series of gestures and phrases articulated. At this point, the piece ceases to be as conservative, and the scientists and composer begin to increasingly explore a means by which to creatively galvanise material connections across multitudinous points, experimenting with materiality in both conventional and innovative ways.

Sound Example 4: this example sees the interpreter harkening back to some of the earlier, more rudimentary experimental gestures. Once again, the challenge to develop longer-form phrases (in the case of the composer) or develop functional molecular cohesion within the laboratory setting results in interrupted, incomplete and functionally unstable outcomes.

Sound Example 5: this example illustrates a far more codified, confident exploration of materiality as the scientist/composer begins to present exceedingly functional (albeit brief), highly directed control of materiality. The formation of iterative phrases, gestures and patterns begin to take definite shape, signifying that molecular bonding and chemical cohesion finally start to crystalise.

Sound Example 6: the sixth example represents a return to the laboratory setting across varied dimensions of experimentation, yet in a more directed, consistent and assertive way. The materials employed signify the development of a compositionally unified language and a refined scientific methodology.

Sound Example 7: the final example is almost entirely metaphorical, as industrial sounds are introduced by the composer to portray the transportation of materiality from the laboratory setting into an array of rural environments, ultimately serving to garner water from otherwise arid, desiccated atmospheres.

Biomimetics allowed the composer to explore the properties of natural systems that operate beyond the scale of direct human perception. The genetic, molecular, and nanoscale processes unfold according to imperceivable complex interactions. However, biomimetics provided a method to translate the behaviour of these nanoscopic particles into perceivable musical units. The complex scientific models in developing nanoscopic hydrophobic surfaces became vessels for sonic creativity while retaining essential behaviours such as growth, materiality, spatial perspective, duration and elasticity. In essence, biomimetics gives perceptual form to imperceptible behaviours by developing formal analogues in our experiential modalities.

The composition of cdot highlights biomimicry’s formative and indissoluble influence on musical thought and action. It uses non-sounding extrinsic phenomena as models to derive functional compositional strategies to develop, sculpt and shape musical elements on micro and macro timescales. Furthermore, it demonstrates that biomimicry is an efficient methodology for merging scientific and musical concepts into heuristic resources that guide and contour compositional decisions and offer potential solutions to the challenges that arise during creative practice.

5. CONCLUSION

Biomimicry encourages a shift in perspective away from anthropocentrism and promotes a mutual partnership with nature. It prompts the artist to solve design challenges within a broader environmental context and encourages sonic practices that interpret systems beyond our everyday human experience.

While cdot is a profoundly biomimetic work, it is crucial to underscore that artistic interpretation and creative licence played a significant role in its realisation, which suggests that a formalised biomimetic framework may serve as an excellent starting point for initiating compositions, addressing creative challenges, or fostering interdisciplinary partnerships, but does not necessitate rigid compliance. For example, cdot adheres to the cyclical steps of the biomimetic methodology outlined in section 2.1 yet not in servile ways that emphasise explicit formulaic processes over intuition and imagination. Furthermore, cdot did not emerge from abstracted processes applied rigorously throughout the composition journey. Instead, it drew from biomimetic principles at different scales, whether that be the sound object level in creating arched accumulation and dispersal of pitched material in ways that mimic the channelling of water over the Namib beetle’s exoskeleton or at the level of musical phrases, which form by mimicking the fusion of nanoscopic particles. This emphasis on biologisation and emulation suggests that these are the most critical stages of the design process and likely good entry points for composers wishing to explore a scalable approach to biomimicry in future works. However, it is equally possible to imagine how the sound design and composition techniques that mimic natural phenomena in cdot could undergo various degrees of abstraction to generate reusable tools by encapsulating the salient properties of these techniques, which, for instance, could, at a basic level, involve saving a chain of effects processors. A more advanced level of abstraction could involve developing custom software tools for signal processing or musical event sequencing that methodologically imitate the natural processes emulated in cdot.

From an evaluation standpoint, Young’s earlier observation about composers setting personal criteria for overcoming problems based on their theoretical, speculative and empirical work remains the most appropriate way to assess the successfulness of biomimicry in electroacoustic composition. In other words, the success of biomimetic techniques is not measured by strict adherence to natural processes but by the composer’s sense of aesthetic satisfaction and creative resolve.

Although cdot articulates scientific concepts through biomimicry, the listener’s comprehension of the piece is not contingent on an understanding or an awareness of these concepts. In contrast, sonification and soundscape composition often augment the audience’s understanding of a subject, concept or location by sonically representing salient aspects of selected data or environments. Therefore, future applications of a biomimetic composition framework are probably better suited to developing personal tools and devices specific to the composition process rather than representing data directly in the music.

While the ideas and techniques surrounding the application of biomimicry within electroacoustic music are in their infancy, the biomimetic principles, particularly biologisation and emulation, which underpin cdot’s aesthetic, combined with other forays into biomimicry described in section 2.2.1 demonstrate that a personalised biomimetic framework has exciting potential as an innovative and flexible form of environmentally attuned sonic practice, which opens new avenues within established fields of music that commune and engage with nature at various levels.