The paper “Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance” presents a project in which chemical reactions were created and used to trigger different sounds. The reactions were sampled and mapped into a “sound recipe” and showcased as a live performance. Different chemical processes and substances were carefully selected based on certain criteria like availability, safety, controllability, and range. The creation of sound was the main focus; however, since it was meant to be a live performance, visual appeal was also considered (colorful liquids like red wine and orange juice were chosen over clear vinegar). Chemical reactions are used not just as metaphors (or visuals) in performance, but as literal sound generators. Through the manipulation of chemical properties—like electrolyte mixtures and their reactive behaviors—electrical signals are generated and fed into computer systems, where they are shaped and sonified.
The project was created as part of a course called “Human Computer Interaction Theory and Practice: Designing New Devices.” It is an interesting study of the process of creation—drawing parallels between the art of cooking and the art of music: creating a carefully crafted dish and composing a piece of music. Different ingredients and processes alter the final outcome, directed by a composer or chef who controls the composition and final product.
Personally, this new angle of looking at music and approaching composition in such a tangible way was very interesting. Especially as someone who doesn’t know a lot about music and sonification, but is very interested in cooking and baking, I found this experiment gave me a new perspective on the composition of music.
What’s especially interesting about this idea for me as an interaction designer are the implications for almost every interdisciplinary design field and place for interaction. It is a powerful reminder to look beyond the obvious tools. It encourages us to rethink the boundaries of materiality, data, and performance, and expands our definition of what can be an interface or generate usable data (or how something seemingly unrelated can be made usable). I am thinking especially about how this can reshape how we engage with technology, nature, and art. Invisible processes, for example (in nature, cooking, our surroundings, etc.), can be uncovered—not just (as usual) via visuals, but perhaps through sound. This is a channel I, and many other installations, projects, or products, often overlook. However, in terms of ambience or even accessibility, this should be considered and explored much more.
Another thought that is more closely related to artistic aspects of the project would be the visual components of the “instrument.” I feel like it has great potential, and while already considered in some parts, I see a lot of room for improvement, since chemical reactions offer a huge amount of visually appealing options to work with. Phenomena like synesthesia come to mind, and it would be very interesting to see a close relation between the visual reactions and the generated sounds. Moving away from performance art and more into immersive, interactive, and participatory projects, this could, for example, mean an entirely new dining experience that engages all senses in a new and enhanced way.
In conclusion, this paper serves as a strong starting point for rethinking how we design—by considering and combining different sensory experiences in innovative and unexpected ways to create new experiences.
Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance: https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2003/nime2003_083.pdf
