this discussion leads us pointedly to look at the difference between sound activity (or lack of it) and visual activity as performance media. understanding their fundamental differences are of paramount importance to us as we work out new ways to combine them interactively. There are obviously basic physiological differences -- we can direct our eyes, but not our ears; we can hear off-stage activities, but not see them. Equally important are the forces, the tendencies in human perception, to relate, associate and link stimuli from different sensory organs. These "forces" can be so strong that we even experience them vicariously. We can "feel" a dancer's physicality, (ie. their kinesthetic sense), for example, even though WE are sitting in a chair. the point im getting at relates to Peter's statement >Lastly, since our ears hear sound from all angles around us, I would argue >that our ability to attend to "other" sounds in a performance space is >greater than our ability to attend to other (off-stage) visual stimuli. A >performer on stage is in such control of an audience's attention, that it >seems a bit difficult to imagine that performer's stillness allowing the >audience to attend all other stimuli in the space, as they could perhaps do >with sound. This may and may not be true, depending on the circumstances. Indeed, one can argue that the reverse is true, because as soon as our eyes become tired of the unchanging image, we can and do, with essentially no energy, rotate our eyeballs to a new position and leave the performer behind (something we cannot do with our ears). I dont think visual stimuli, even good performers, necessarily "hold us" any longer than interesting sounds. We are, though, held in a different way! Looking at stillness, how we perceive it, how it leads us to think and feel, sheds light on the complex and (for intermedia artists) extremely pertinent issue of the how our senses relate. the question, it seems to me, is what happens next? As Robbie Shaw commented: >Wouldn't a series of stillness captures come off as "poses", and isn't >this explored often in choreography? Yes indeed, but stillness in dance quickly becomes more than poses! The pose, the innate expression of the physical form, is something we respond to at once. But after only a very short time we are far more aware of other things: "oh, he's not moving", "this must be a strain for him", "i can see his breathing", "i wonder how long he will hold it" "i wonder how long he CAN hold it?", "oh, i saw him move a tiny bit". and this, as others have pointed out in this discussion, is only the beginning. from here we may be led down various paths relating to what it means to be alive and human. Eyecon (Palindrome's motion analysis software) has a feature that allows you to see differential images. This means you can switch on a monitor window which, as long as no motion takes place, remains black. Only pixels whose values change are revealed. With objects like the floor, walls and ceiling, pixel values change only when lighting conditions change (when the sun passes behind a cloud, the entire room suddenly springs onto the screen). With human beings it is another matter. As a number of you have pointed out: You can't stop moving. I know, I've tried. I've tried to hold poses while watching the differential image beamed on the wall in front of me. Believe me, WE NEVER STOP MOVING. (Till we die, at which time we are no longer we, are we?) I was talking to a surgeon the other day who operates on a table with a built in CAT scanner. After scanning the patient, he can send his bore wire into, say a pelvic bone and follow its progress _virtually_ on a monitor screen and can thus avoid critical nerves and so on since he can see them in a 3-d image. The catch of course is he is not boring into a virtual pelvis, but a real one. The screen may say "all's clear" even as the patient is having his leg paralyzed. (sorry to get so gruesome here -- but the point is serious: its really hard to treat bodies as inanimate objects.) His system depends on the fact that the real patient stays in agreement with the virtual one. I asked him about this. How he achieves the necessary level of stillness in a living human being. Lacking an exoskeleton, you really cant clamp a person down, we're much too squishy. And anyway, our breath keeps us constantly in motion. Anyway, all of you (including Matt Rogalsky -- whose 12 of December project sounds totally cool) have started my wheels turning. Thanks! Robert Wechsler ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert Wechsler Artistic Director PALINDROME Inter-media Performance Group Johannisstr. 42 90419 Nürnberg fon: 49 911 39 74 72 fax: 49 911 377 8311 mobile: 49 179 511 0400 http://www.palindrome.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02