Robert Walton has started a very wide-ranging discussion that I have found quite interesting. I would like to add just a couple of observations to the last couple of entries. As far as live-and-on-the-web is concerned, if there is no feedback between the web viewers and the performers then the whole thing may as well be pre-recorded. At leaset in terms of the web audience there would be no difference. So in the football analogy, we are told that the game is live but how do we know that it is not time-delayed?(even if we watch it on TV.) Or even staged for that matter. Basically we believe that it is live. We have faith. This brings us into the discussion of the importance of knowing, whether it is in regards to the mapping of an interactive piece or whether a distance performance is live or memorex. Does it matter if we know or not? Is it enough to think we know (i.e.to have faith)? If it is important, then why? Does the suspension of belief talked about in the theatre extend into this territory? It is interesting to note that high-dollar seats in football stadiums have been fitted with computers to access this online info that Richard talked about while watching the game from the stands. This idea might be worth consideration in the performing arts, especially opera. We are currently working with some of the issues mentioned by Richard, from web-controllable cameras that web audience members can use to get the desired perspective of a live work, to web interfaces for stage media that would give the internet viewers the opportunity to change lighting, sound mix, video projection mix etc. Of course the problem is that only one user can access the controls at a time, like the radio talk show, but at least we are not screening, preping or in any other way controlling the activity of the users. Stage works will change under these conditions. I also appreciated Scott's discussion of input, mapping, and output in interactive works. I believe you were suggesting, Scott, that, in some cases, the mapping could be considered the work of art itself. In the same way the Kac speaks about the fact that the work of art in telematic pieces may actually reside in the web interactions themselves, perhaps the same is true of some interactive works with regards to mapping. Does the mapping have a more primary force in the work than the actual performers? Are the performers actions ameliorated to such a degree as to lend precedence to the connection between the input and the output? How then do we bring an appreciation of the mapping to the viewers? Through the web? Finally, in response to David Sadowsky's comments regarding casting of the new in old and familiar forms. I see that we always try to use new technologies to re-create what we already know and do with existing technology and practice. Often this produces a less than satisfactory result. Perhaps this is a way of understanding the differences between the new and the old, or a method of learning and understanding something new. Ultimately, for new technologies to truly be interesting they must come into their own, and dictate their own terms. Or, conversely, we must listen to the new and follow its lead. This is often what I feel when working with telematic performance and in web-based performance situations-a struggle to see through the clouds of the old in order to see the true form of the new. jdm John D. Mitchell Arizona State University p.480-965-2709 f.480-965-2247
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02