<x-rich><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>Greetings, This is in response to the discussion on "live simultaneous/ telematic web-based and interactive performance projects".... I just finished writing a paper on this topic ...the paper includes a discussion about <italic>Janus/Ghost Stories</italic>, a telematic performance that I choreographed. Some of the things that came out of working on <italic>Janus/Ghost Stories</italic> was that "distributed choreography" characterizes an area of artistic vision which includes the collective intelligence of people working collaboratively, alongside the peculiar idiosyncrasies of telecommunication tools, and that uncertainty regarding networked performance (dynamics between dance and technology), may become outdated with time. It appears that those who worked on the <italic>Janus</italic> project (choreographer, dancers, musician, video artist, technical support) gained experience, and new information or knowledge (through sensing and exploring physical intuition) about reasoning, planning, performing and sharing dance, music and video between people at the same time who are located in different places. Another issue that came out of working on <italic>Janus/Ghost Stories</italic> is that several of the participants believe dance is not absolute... rather a changing background makes it relative (to media, culture, motivation, perception, etc.). Best, Lisa </fontfamily>>Hello, >I wanted to respond to the current workshops, "Cellbytes" and "Koerper - >Computer - Interaktion" and the discussions coming out of them. > >This is a part of an interview I had to conduct with my colleague Per >Platou for a norwegian magazine. I was actually asking him if he was >religious, but this is taken out of context because I feel it is highly >relevant to the present dancetech discussion. Pepe said: > >"Okay, here's the quote. It's from a text by Philip Dick called "How to >build a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later" which is funny >because Philip Dick builds universes which fall apart all the time. He was >asked to describe reality, and he answered: > >Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. > >That's all he came up with. But he believed that we all live in our own >universes, and that reality is just waiting to agree on certain rules for >interacting with each other." > > >When I was making M@ggie's Love Bytes in 95-96 it was dead fun to be online >in cu seeme. >I was also talking to the folks on Mir through cu-seeme, and at that stage, >they were answering me. It was great. Like sci-fi come true. Soon the >two-way communication came to an end (regarding Mir). It was only possible >to see in, but no interaction could take place. Now, I can only asume that >enough "evidence" of interaction had taken place to establish that it was >possible for everyday folks to communicate with text and video image with >folks in Space. It seemed like the powers were trying to say, hey, we can >colonise space, and you don't have to worry coz you'll still be able to >talk to your grandchildren out there - when the time comes. >Here's a quote from: <<http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/ops/> > >"The first American to live aboard Mir reported feelings of loneliness and >isolation, and steps were taken to prevent that happening to his >successors." > >Six years on and I'm much more critical to the notion of split location >telematic performance, especially regarding dance ... or any media that >seemingly demands the presence of a physical body. If the media demands a >physical presence, why should a public settle for anything but that? What >substitute is a telematic image? It is no substitute unless you have a >bloody good reason for it to be so. Going a back a few years to Telematic >Dreaming by Paul Sermon - he gave a bloody good reason - what would you do >in bed with someone when your actions did not result in direct physical >consequences - no physical contact with your bed-partner was possible. (He >had to adjust this installation for the japanese public, who found the bed >situation too intimidating. The japanese got a version where they watched >each other- superimposed togehter on a sofa - on a tv set in a less >intimidating, sitting room setting). Like net porn sites with video >teleconferencing facilities: You can watch and instruct, and maybe jerk >off, but you can't get aids. Your partner can't catch you doing it, >physically, with another person, but have you been unfaithful? Not to >mention the infamous net rape of the early days. It's a Matrix thing. > >I just watched Matrix with the kiddies, for the umpteenth time. Each time, >at the end of the film, they ask me - what is the new world... what has >changed? What is new for the people now that Neo has won. Are they free? I >try to tell them about the mythological references in Matrix (about >"M"orpheous and the underworld, etc, the signifigance of Anderson becoming >Neo, the betrayal in biblical terms, etc), and that the people are now free >- if they want to be. They have to find a new way. To build a universe, or >at least a world, that doesn't fall apart two days later. > >So, say you're working in a telematic situation, and maybe you've also got >some triggers and other tech-network-stuff, and you're all performers and >creators. You've got your material and media mapped, you are building a >world - and unless you find some very clever way to include them, or to let >them know the rules - your tight world excludes the eyeballers. Do you have >to prove to them that they are being physically and/or emotionally and/or >intellectually stimulated by their eyeballing? I personally think this is >what draws folks to dance anyway. The sympathetic empathy and the response >it triggers in the individual public. So the answer must be no. You are >building a garden of exotic delights and you, the artists, are the only >ones alowed into all it's glories - or, by default, the ones who take the >time to read the info. You are working in the theatre of representation. >You maybe should be working in the theatre of experience. This is why Paul >Sermon's afore mentioned installation "worked" on many levels. > >My thoughts on Celebytes, after reading the documentation and seeing the >images are this: it are a group working from different platforms ... the >mapping sessions are an attempt to fuse these paltforms and spaces. Take >the statement from the choreographer Jennifer Tsukayama, who said: > >"Instead of thinking of creating one work at a time I have to think of >creating three works at the same time." > >Why is it necessary to create three differnet pieces? Because you are >working in the theatre of representation, even though you are presenting 3 >perspectives of one idea. Any notion of the theatre of experience is left >to process, and you are thinking in the lines of a product, (which will >not be "perfect" - what is perfect?) which is familiar to you. That is >anyway my interpretation/response of/to the documentation. I appolgise if >it appears superficial. I am only working from the mediated experience of >documentation. That is my reality. > >With regards to Johannes and gang, they have stated that they intend to >hook up ONE audience member to the brain scanning equiptment to get >eyeballer interaction into the piece. Input creates output that creates >input, etc. Maybe that ONE is the Neo, and the work will be a brilliant >breakthrough in the history of art. But still, one has to remember that Neo >was dedicated to a cause, which was monolithically connected to life and >death. His focus was strong. He was already the chosen one, and we, the >eyeballers, have been shown his process. If the Chosen One has any effect >on the outcome, is it perceivable? Even to the chosen one? We know nothing >about the chosen one's history. We can only think that maybe it should have >been "me" who had the honour, or the novelty, of that experience. Or it >becomes like a gameshow. Come on down! Which is fine, if this is your >message. I suspect that the chosen one, and his/her brainwaves can only add >to the whisperings of the work. > >There is a project here in Norway which gives support for making art for >infants. This is intitiated and based around a choreographer's personal >research which is, in a way, similar to the Koerper - Computer - >Interaktion principle. Several members of a dance company had babies at the >same time. They sometimes brought the babies to rehersals, and it became >apparent that at ceretain times in the rehersals, the babies communicated >(responded) by their behaviour that they were stimulated by the work they >saw: increased gurgling, waving arms, etc, etc, etc, So, the mission was >launched, and funds can be got to make dance and theatre which focuses on >the stimulation of babies. The more you can get the little ones physically >involved with the performance, the better. Get them to crawl over you, ride >on you.. that's great! This is a great project, but still I can't help >thinking of the gorillas in a certain safari park I just visited. They like >to watch mtv, so they have cable tv - it's stimulating, compared to the >dull life they lead in their enclosure, where everything they need to keep >them alive is otherwise provided. To fill a gap where something is missing. >But, can the gorillas be expected to ask the Real Slim Shadey to Please >Stand Up? Aparently they like the cartoon channels too. > >I have read, or been told - I can't remember which - that if I watch the >tv, or any screen for more than half an hour I go into a a state of >semi-sleep, because i'm sitting passively, and my eyes do not move. I do >not perceive in full conciousness everything I see and hear. I'm only >dreaming. I guess, then, folks eat chips and sweeties at the cinema to keep >conscious. I guess I'm chain-smoking while I type to keep me at least a bit >aware of what's coming out of my efforts. I have a screensaver, which does >not "listen to" keyboard input. If I type for long stretches my mac >presumes that it should go into the "sleep" mode, the screensaver mode, >unless I tell it otherwise. > >Several months ago I participated in a tele-presence art piece by a >colleague, Michelle Teran from Toronto, called "Menage a Trois". She sat in >a gallery with a powerbook. She provided each visiting individual with a >tiny screen which showed only my image as I appeared in Ivisit. She acted >as an interface between myself and her visiting public by relating verbally >a dialogue between myself and her public, ie, she relayed verbally my >communication as it appeared as text in Ivisit chat window, and the typed >the public's response to my text to me. I provided text, image and sound. I >chose to be highly costumed in retro-sci-fi gear, showed only my head and >showlders, and played a Japanese rendition of Pokemon music constantly. All >of the visitors had absolutley no idea that I was a REAL person. The small >size of the screen and the low bandwidth image helped this illusion. Some >were told by Michelle that this was the case, and still did not believe. We >managed to create a little universe that did not fall apart, at least not >for the 15 min - 30 min sessions we had with each participator. This >performance could only work on an intimate level. As a "Menage a Trois". I >had no idea that the folks could be so easily bought. At the time I >experienced an excillerating feeling of power through this intimate, remote >communication. Afterwards I thought, okay, so I can create the illusion of >being an animated, simulated character. WoW. It made me feel a bit empty. >All I need is my head and shoulders and my gear, which reminded me of an >old advert for dandruff shampoo. Get a life, grrl! > >With regards to multiple, simultaneous, geographically seperated >performances, I can only say that they're happening every second in every >part of the world. Whether one is aware of them or not. Whether one has >mediated access or not. It is happening. Our collective heart beats create >one hell of a rythm. Don't let the technology hype fool you. Parallel space >and parallel time is going on. So at this point, I think that the spreading >of ideas, and the posibilities in which we have to spread ideas is the most >important development and tool we have right to now. Reality is just >waiting to agree on certain rules for interacting with each other. > >Cheers, > >amanda >xxxxxxx > > > >--------------------------------------- >http://www.notam.uio.no/motherboard/ >Tel:+47 22563507 >Oscarsgt. 49, 0258 Oslo, Norway. ===================================== Lisa Naugle Assistant Professor Dance and Technology University of California, Irvine School of the Arts, Department of Dance MAB 300 Irvine, California 92697-2775 email: lnaugle@uci.edu tel: (949) 824-3209 fax: (949) 824-4563 http://www.arts.uci.edu/lnaugle/ </x-rich>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST