Related Projects: conFIGURING the CAVE
interactive installation.
The puppet is used as a tool so that the audience can physically engage with the space. Each movement triggers and creates a different pattern/design which projects onto the wall. The body is immersed in this space entirely so it allows for the audience to travel.
The Distributed Legble City
interactive through physical exercise or movement. The bike generates the movement on the screen. Audience or participant have the power to control the virtual body however the map is set up in the system. The word which are often juxaposed create new ideas and immerse the participant into a new scape and mind frame through connotations and the stress of the cycling on the body.
Glossay
digital trompe l'oeil= digital trick on the eye, creates an optical illusion.
covariance= linear relationship of two random variables
April 15, 2010
iCinema reflection
Some thoughts and first impressions on some of the individual projects made for the iCinema
Secret Angkor and Hampi live.
I really appreciated the suggestion that a platform like this might be used as a mechanism to preserve information about a place, especially an ancient place in deterioration such as these two iconic sites. For archival purposes it is brilliant, and also possibly the most efficient way I have come across of showing a place short of actually going there.
There are some obvious bonuses from the tourism and environmental perspectives also. Expensive and carbon emitting flights are no longer necessary. The actual degradation that takes place when people visit an area is also removed from the equation.
I was thinking that this form of tourism could come in handy with fragile eco sites also, the great barrier reef, for example. (But can you simulate wetness, scuba, compression sickness?)
Realistically I think there is a want to visit these places for 'real' that the virtual has yet to supercede. This platform is just not well developed enough for it to be a worthy competitor for the actual experience of place.
Hampi, for instance, is sprawling, hot and full of happy locals and other tourists. Visiting Hampi like this does not demonstrate the time it takes to see the place (days, weeks), the barrage of people rushing to meet you at the bus stop to sell you a drink or offer you a room in their guesthouse, the frustration when the only atm in town breaks down, the excellent rope swing that hangs over the river at the mango lassi cafe, the relief and embarrassment experienced when your conical boat capsises, the annoying manager at the hotel you are staying at who tries to charge you three times the agreed upon price.
Yep, I've been to Hampi. There is no way that the iCinema came close to doing it justice.
Not to mention that the iCinema is a totally insular experience that prevents any actual human interaction. Meeting and learning about other cultures is one of the most valuable lessons learned in travel, so I can see it possibly entrenching a Xenophobia and cultural hegemony.
The Sydney journey was surely fun and a good demonstrator of the technology, but on this I noticed that the footage was still (like google earth/maps) fixed in time. Based on a few things I notices in the footage taken from Bondi I would guess that it was taken in the summer of 08/09. A few new buildings have popped up since then and some beachside murals changed.
So even though the footage is relatively new, it is still fixed and the place it represents has changed.
Not that I would mind if a form like this discouraged a few from coming to my local beach on a hot Saturday!
The Eavesdrop piece I would have liked the opportunity to get more intimate with to get a better listen to each narrative. As I mentioned yesterday in class, I actually think this is a concept that would work extremely well in a live theatre environment! I could instantly see it as a sort of murder mystery party/ interactive theatre event. I suppose putting on this sort of 'choose your own adventure' performance on in this way does save money on actors, theatre space and or course it can be engaged at any time of day, no need to show up for the 8pm curtain.
Auslander might have had some compelling arguments on the dance peice. Admittedly I was impressed that the peice was reversed from cameras gazing in to dancers to the dancers gazing in to the audience. A very claustrophobic experience for me!
I can imagine some interesting work being done in terms of servaillance/panopticons emerging from this technology.
My final point, we were warned on a few occasions that sickness might occur, as it did for me. I am terribly prone to motion sickness in most forms of 3D cinema. How can those of us with this problem engage with this technology?
No great loss I am sure that Avatar and Alice in Wonderland 3D were not an option for me, but if we see more of this type of media emerging there will need to be an antidote for the sicknness too!
Katie
Secret Angkor and Hampi live.
I really appreciated the suggestion that a platform like this might be used as a mechanism to preserve information about a place, especially an ancient place in deterioration such as these two iconic sites. For archival purposes it is brilliant, and also possibly the most efficient way I have come across of showing a place short of actually going there.
There are some obvious bonuses from the tourism and environmental perspectives also. Expensive and carbon emitting flights are no longer necessary. The actual degradation that takes place when people visit an area is also removed from the equation.
I was thinking that this form of tourism could come in handy with fragile eco sites also, the great barrier reef, for example. (But can you simulate wetness, scuba, compression sickness?)
Realistically I think there is a want to visit these places for 'real' that the virtual has yet to supercede. This platform is just not well developed enough for it to be a worthy competitor for the actual experience of place.
Hampi, for instance, is sprawling, hot and full of happy locals and other tourists. Visiting Hampi like this does not demonstrate the time it takes to see the place (days, weeks), the barrage of people rushing to meet you at the bus stop to sell you a drink or offer you a room in their guesthouse, the frustration when the only atm in town breaks down, the excellent rope swing that hangs over the river at the mango lassi cafe, the relief and embarrassment experienced when your conical boat capsises, the annoying manager at the hotel you are staying at who tries to charge you three times the agreed upon price.
Yep, I've been to Hampi. There is no way that the iCinema came close to doing it justice.
Not to mention that the iCinema is a totally insular experience that prevents any actual human interaction. Meeting and learning about other cultures is one of the most valuable lessons learned in travel, so I can see it possibly entrenching a Xenophobia and cultural hegemony.
The Sydney journey was surely fun and a good demonstrator of the technology, but on this I noticed that the footage was still (like google earth/maps) fixed in time. Based on a few things I notices in the footage taken from Bondi I would guess that it was taken in the summer of 08/09. A few new buildings have popped up since then and some beachside murals changed.
So even though the footage is relatively new, it is still fixed and the place it represents has changed.
Not that I would mind if a form like this discouraged a few from coming to my local beach on a hot Saturday!
The Eavesdrop piece I would have liked the opportunity to get more intimate with to get a better listen to each narrative. As I mentioned yesterday in class, I actually think this is a concept that would work extremely well in a live theatre environment! I could instantly see it as a sort of murder mystery party/ interactive theatre event. I suppose putting on this sort of 'choose your own adventure' performance on in this way does save money on actors, theatre space and or course it can be engaged at any time of day, no need to show up for the 8pm curtain.
Auslander might have had some compelling arguments on the dance peice. Admittedly I was impressed that the peice was reversed from cameras gazing in to dancers to the dancers gazing in to the audience. A very claustrophobic experience for me!
I can imagine some interesting work being done in terms of servaillance/panopticons emerging from this technology.
My final point, we were warned on a few occasions that sickness might occur, as it did for me. I am terribly prone to motion sickness in most forms of 3D cinema. How can those of us with this problem engage with this technology?
No great loss I am sure that Avatar and Alice in Wonderland 3D were not an option for me, but if we see more of this type of media emerging there will need to be an antidote for the sicknness too!
Katie
April 14, 2010
week 6 - impressions of related projects and glossary
RELATED PROJECT #1: CUPOLA
- Supposedly a highly immersive audiovisual experience.
- Projection undertaken inside a suspended semi-spherical projection screen, viewers can stand in or lie under. The sphere space would make it feel highly immersive as it encompasses sides and ceiling.
- Low level of interactivity as viewer has no control over what is experienced, aside from the choice of angle / area on which to focus.
- Used primarily to draw focus and attention to often unnoticed or unappreciated visual ceiling architecture of particular cities.
- Gives the viewer a new aesthetic and spatial experience of these often-familiar sights. This is partly facilitated by the lack of the usual choice observers have when in the building itself, of whether to look at eye-level architecture such as windows and walls, rather than the more obscure visual efforts of observing the ceiling, which many people often don’t think to do. In the dome they have no choice but to observe the ceiling.
RELATED PROJECT #2: CROSS CURRENTS
- Interacts with the viewer’s movement by means of a laser motion detection system, producing a split-screen video projection beamed onto the two intersecting walls of the room.
- Interactive narrative dealing with issues of the sex trade. The reconstruction is controlled by the viewer and is enacted by each viewer’s individual trajectory across the space, triggering a series of stories or opinions, partly through having characters appearing in front of you and speaking. So it is highly personal for the viewer and the characters especially.
- The piece appeared to possess some immersive qualities as it is projected onto a 360 degree screen surrounding the audience completely.
GLOSSARY
Paradigm - a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
Ontology - philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, reality. Deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist (e.g. is a mediated dancer an existent dancer?)
Interface systems - through which the audience interacts. Where interaction between humans and machines occurs. Common boundary.
Kineasthetic - relating to the sensation of movement (related to the Bondi driving video from iCinema?)
Glossary
Glossary for week 6
Three types of narratives.
(our interpretation in relation to the definition on the website for I Cinema)
1.Polychronic - A separated relationship between the on screen performance and the viewer.
2.Transcriptive - The viewer is able to interact with the image, however the narrative of the image/performance remains the same. Eg. I Cinema's "Eavesdrop"
3.Co evolutionary - The viewer is able to interact with the image and alter the narrative according to their interaction. The narrative is changed by the relationship of the viewer. Eg. Web of Life and ConFIGURING the CAVE
Reading Review Week 5
Johannes Birringer ‘Contemporary Performance/Technology’ Theatre Journal 51.4 (1999) 361‐381
p. 371 - 375
· The constant want to respond to the increasing influence of imaging and recording electronic technologies
o This shows that over time, the virtual and technology is slowly making its way into
· Thecla Schiphorst’s “Life forms”
o Merce Cunningham was one of the first people to use this technology that was based on human movement and choreography
· Technology is used for the “design of movement sequences for human and other articulated figures”
o The technology was invented in the aim that you could create a dance and also experiment on virtual dancers, without placing the actual dancer in any harm or to try out how choreography will work.
o The technology however can be completely independent from a performance
· “Dance performances and music in real and virtual spaces, allowing dancers in actual space to interact with multi-layered sound, text and real time video images beamed through online Internet facilities.”
o This interactivity is focused on throughout most works reviewed in this reading
· Motion capture introduced as an “extension or simulation of human body motion
· Women choreographers – shaped much of the twentieth-century dance history.
o It is interesting to see how the mediatised culture still write feminist comments about topics such as this.
· The technology gives a strong biased – influencing a lot of choreography existing now
o Similar to what Austlander says about how technology is influenced by performance and performance is then influenced by technology. Leaving society in a constant loop of development
· Technology remains a mechanic device – it still needs someone to run it and works only off what has been coded.
o The reading discusses how technology runs and works, being treated as mechanic.
· The reading explains how the interaction changes the images and sound in cyberspace
o It then goes on to explain that the responses to movement are changed as the dynamic qualities are changed once placed inside the virtual. There is no gravitational force.
· Positive and negative spaces
o The internet “implies distance and spatial separation”
· The viewer is then incorporated in to a theatrical role
· The sense of touch and exploration of the senses
o Sense plays a large part of human qualities. It was debated that to make a performance, its all about the emotional response. In ways, it does alter a person’s perception but in other ways, its about the technology that alters ones perception. Sense however, establishes that connection to a physical presence.
· The choreographer becomes a virtuality DJ
o This relates back to the notion of the audience becoming the part of the performance.
(We divided this section up and this is my section)
Adjudicator's Report, Week 5, Debate 1
To prepare for adjudicating the debate, my fellow adjudicators and I agreed upon a specific system for judging and grading the speakers. After researching some specific criteria for adjudicating formal debates, we decided to adopt the Australian Rostrum format, which allocates marks in terms of matter (purpose, relevance and quality of argument), manner (appropriate and persuasive use of notes, vocal dynamics and body language) and method (structure and adherence to a consistent team argument). We used the matter/manner/method breakdown to score each individual speaker, allocating marks out of a possible total of 40 for matter, another 40 for manner and a final 20 for method.
The first speaker for the Affirmative team (Kirsten) began with a strong, structured introduction of her team’s key line of argument, and made the argument that the virtual aspects brought to modern dance productions indeed take attention away from the dance, reducing the human element of the performance. Kirsten drew on quotes from Paul Kaiser and Merce Cunningham throughout her speech, and also referenced Philip Auslander, with a strong closing.
The first speaker for the Negative team (Katie) argued that the combination of dance and virtual elements leads to the emergence of a new, multimedia performance. Rather than obliterating the dance aspect of the performance, this multimedia performance creates new aesthetics and aesthetic standards through which we can then consider (and by which we must judge) the resultant work. Katie solidly introduced her team’s argument and although she spoke too quickly at times and had some difficulty with her palm-cards, her references to “Glow” by Chunky Move, and her use of a Gideon Obarzanek quote were well thought-out.
The second speaker for the Affirmative drew on quotes from Kaiser and Marc Downey, and very interestingly questioned the intention behind the incorporation of virtual aspects into dance performances. This speaker cleverly noted that audiences remember and remain fixated upon the unfamiliarity and even intrusion of these virtual aspects – which allow the vital dance itself to be reduced and even lost. The ‘virtual’ then becomes the focus, and the goal, of the piece. The fact that this speaker was mostly reading from notes and not engaging with the audience did somewhat detract from the overall quality of the speech.
The second speaker for the Negative (Jennifer) argued that the virtual aspects of a piece do not necessarily overwhelm the dance itself, drawing upon the performance of “Biped”, and again referring to Chunky Move’s “Glow”. Jennifer mostly reiterated earlier arguments and spoke for the shortest time of any of the day’s speakers. Although she gave a strong rebuttal to begin with, Jennifer lost marks for offering very little new content.
The third speaker for the Affirmative (Karisha) gave the argument that the authenticity of the original art form is indeed lost in the combination of dance and the virtual, and, like Katie’s speech for the Negative team, the integration of modern technological aspects gives the work new meaning. Karisha spoke of the combination of dance, sound and visual effects suggesting interaction, and requiring the computer to fulfil a new role as mediator to all of these creative aspects. After a strong beginning (with particularly good vocal projection and the refreshing use of rhetorical questioning), Karisha spent too long on a convoluted final example, and unfortunately did not leave herself enough time to retrace and successfully conclude her group’s argument.
The third and final speaker for the Negative (Gavin) spoke very well, engaging his audience with good eye contact and good, clear vocal projection. Gavin rebutted the Affirmative, arguing that the “virtual” should merely enhance the dance, with the original form still having weight over its supplementary virtual elements. He suggested that these virtual aspects might highlight and enhance the emotional aspect of the dance, allowing the audience a new and useful point of access into the dance, and perhaps suggesting a re-interpretation of the dance narrative. Despite this interesting line of argument, Gavin relied too much upon previous examples (yet again referring the Chunky Move’s work) and a general summary of the debate readings. Like Karisha, Gavin did not give himself time to conclude his group’s argument, and was the only speaker in the debate to run over time.
After a discussion between the adjudicators, we finalised and correlated our marks for each team. Ultimately, the Affirmative team won with a team total of 687 to the Negative team’s 624. Overall there was a good grasp of the readings, and a strong range of examples. The Affirmative team tended to hold a tighter structure and team-based line of argument throughout, offering well-considered and creative responses to the topic. Notably, both teams offered strong introductions, but more work could have been done in concluding and summarising group lines of argument – particularly by the third speakers from both teams. Given the nature of the discussion, this debate could have gone either way, but ultimately we had to reward the Affirmative team for having a tighter focus and more effective arguments. The approach taken by the Negative team – to argue for a new, “multimedia” experience which transcends a simple opposition between “dance” and “virtual”, was not successfully maintained throughout the debate and altogether not strong enough to defeat the Affirmative, who came in ready to convince us that the impact and influence of the virtual would always dominate over the dance. At times some of the arguments offered by both teams did tend to stray almost to contradict one another, and some more time might have been needed for each team to more carefully coordinate individual speeches within the larger group argument.
The first speaker for the Affirmative team (Kirsten) began with a strong, structured introduction of her team’s key line of argument, and made the argument that the virtual aspects brought to modern dance productions indeed take attention away from the dance, reducing the human element of the performance. Kirsten drew on quotes from Paul Kaiser and Merce Cunningham throughout her speech, and also referenced Philip Auslander, with a strong closing.
The first speaker for the Negative team (Katie) argued that the combination of dance and virtual elements leads to the emergence of a new, multimedia performance. Rather than obliterating the dance aspect of the performance, this multimedia performance creates new aesthetics and aesthetic standards through which we can then consider (and by which we must judge) the resultant work. Katie solidly introduced her team’s argument and although she spoke too quickly at times and had some difficulty with her palm-cards, her references to “Glow” by Chunky Move, and her use of a Gideon Obarzanek quote were well thought-out.
The second speaker for the Affirmative drew on quotes from Kaiser and Marc Downey, and very interestingly questioned the intention behind the incorporation of virtual aspects into dance performances. This speaker cleverly noted that audiences remember and remain fixated upon the unfamiliarity and even intrusion of these virtual aspects – which allow the vital dance itself to be reduced and even lost. The ‘virtual’ then becomes the focus, and the goal, of the piece. The fact that this speaker was mostly reading from notes and not engaging with the audience did somewhat detract from the overall quality of the speech.
The second speaker for the Negative (Jennifer) argued that the virtual aspects of a piece do not necessarily overwhelm the dance itself, drawing upon the performance of “Biped”, and again referring to Chunky Move’s “Glow”. Jennifer mostly reiterated earlier arguments and spoke for the shortest time of any of the day’s speakers. Although she gave a strong rebuttal to begin with, Jennifer lost marks for offering very little new content.
The third speaker for the Affirmative (Karisha) gave the argument that the authenticity of the original art form is indeed lost in the combination of dance and the virtual, and, like Katie’s speech for the Negative team, the integration of modern technological aspects gives the work new meaning. Karisha spoke of the combination of dance, sound and visual effects suggesting interaction, and requiring the computer to fulfil a new role as mediator to all of these creative aspects. After a strong beginning (with particularly good vocal projection and the refreshing use of rhetorical questioning), Karisha spent too long on a convoluted final example, and unfortunately did not leave herself enough time to retrace and successfully conclude her group’s argument.
The third and final speaker for the Negative (Gavin) spoke very well, engaging his audience with good eye contact and good, clear vocal projection. Gavin rebutted the Affirmative, arguing that the “virtual” should merely enhance the dance, with the original form still having weight over its supplementary virtual elements. He suggested that these virtual aspects might highlight and enhance the emotional aspect of the dance, allowing the audience a new and useful point of access into the dance, and perhaps suggesting a re-interpretation of the dance narrative. Despite this interesting line of argument, Gavin relied too much upon previous examples (yet again referring the Chunky Move’s work) and a general summary of the debate readings. Like Karisha, Gavin did not give himself time to conclude his group’s argument, and was the only speaker in the debate to run over time.
After a discussion between the adjudicators, we finalised and correlated our marks for each team. Ultimately, the Affirmative team won with a team total of 687 to the Negative team’s 624. Overall there was a good grasp of the readings, and a strong range of examples. The Affirmative team tended to hold a tighter structure and team-based line of argument throughout, offering well-considered and creative responses to the topic. Notably, both teams offered strong introductions, but more work could have been done in concluding and summarising group lines of argument – particularly by the third speakers from both teams. Given the nature of the discussion, this debate could have gone either way, but ultimately we had to reward the Affirmative team for having a tighter focus and more effective arguments. The approach taken by the Negative team – to argue for a new, “multimedia” experience which transcends a simple opposition between “dance” and “virtual”, was not successfully maintained throughout the debate and altogether not strong enough to defeat the Affirmative, who came in ready to convince us that the impact and influence of the virtual would always dominate over the dance. At times some of the arguments offered by both teams did tend to stray almost to contradict one another, and some more time might have been needed for each team to more carefully coordinate individual speeches within the larger group argument.
April 13, 2010
Week 3 Debate Live Vs Mediated? ‘There is no inherent opposition between live and mediated performance’
1st Group
2nd Speaker Affirmative
Case Line: "The inherent opposition between live and mediated performance is only particular to cultural contexts"?/The notion that live and mediated forms of performance are mutually dependant/ there is no inherent opposition between live and mediated performance but instead, they are mutually dependant.
As our 1st speaker argued; the differences between live and mediated performance lie at the level of cultural economy.
I will be elaborating on Auslander’s argument that the notion that live and mediated forms of performance are mutually dependant through the examples of technological changes in media and audience affection through both live and mediated performance in the event of social and internet liveness.
There is no inherent opposition between live and mediated performance as Auslander states, “the distinction between the live and recorded or mediated performance originated in the era of analog technologies which has changed to the present day to form the basis of our current assumptions about liveness.”Developments in media and information technology really make new modes of performance possible in areas such as new media and multimedia performance- for example inviting us to question what a performance is, DJs & VJs will present a performance of mixed mediated soundtracks and images and it is still a live performance while consisting of the live notion of presence; or when a website now goes live, it is completely mediated in that the concept of liveness is no longer physico-temporal relationship but only temporal – the notion of live and mediated performance becomes mutually dependant.
Auslander explains the changes of the word ‘live’ over time have blurred the lines of opposition between live and mediated performance. As the 1st speaker explained this has evolved through live broadcasts of radio, television, live recording, internet liveness and social liveness as these are forms of both mediated and live performance co-existing. The word live should not be used to oppose from mediated forms of performance but instead be used as a historically contingent term.
· As Auslander elaborates, the concept of liveness has been articulated to emergent technologies and as technology develops so does the mediation in these performances – As Couldry states; “these [oppositions] have disappeared due to performance no longer being limited to specific performer-audience interactions but to a sense of always being connected to other people, of continuous, technologically mediated co-presence with others known or unknown.
· For example; internet liveness and its sense of co-presence among users, this is an example of how performance is seen as ‘live’ by a sense of connection to others though a mediated form – the internet. The liveness of being connected to others through the internet interacts with the recorded mediated mediascape of the internet, this is evident through social liveness through social networking – this is a firm example of the oppositions being mutually dependant.
· Performance is now neither dependant on being live or mediated to the audience as Morse explains it is instead how ““it interacts” with the user even at this minimal level it can produce a feeling of “liveness”” and the “emerging definition of liveness being built primarily around the audience’s affective experience” In regards to social internet liveness - Auslanders main point is that virtual entities feel live to us – which is not he liveness we value in a performance – disregarding the opposition of live and mediated performance.
· As our first speaker explained, various forms of live performance have become more and more like mediated events; in the example of reality television where the mediated and live performances are dependant on each other to create audience affection. Auslander explains that first the real life activities are staged for the camera, usually in the context of a competition which is of course familiar to the competitions we see in mediated performances of quiz and game shows and the staged material is edited into familiar narrative structures – eg: the nice guy or the villain.
Reading Summary week 4
‘Thinking Images’
Paul Kaiser and Marc Downie in conversation with Johannes Barringer.
Reading Summary
The reading/conversation is about the new creation of what Birringer calls a new form of live interactive, digital artwork. It is an integration of live performance and the ‘creatures.’ These ‘creatures’ are a product of artificial intelligence. This AI component allows the ‘creatures’ to obtain a memory of past, present and future. “By perceiving in real-time what is occurring onstage and guessing what might happen next- but it also works with its memory of the past.”(Kaiser, pg.92)
What is most interesting about this digital ‘creature’ having a memory is that it is able to react live with the performance onstage. The spontaneity and desired goal has allowed the ‘creature’ to have its own narrative. Therefore, we as the audience perceive the image as a live performer. “We interpret as some sort of narrative interconnection.” (Kaiser, pg.93) These “specifications” that are programmed into the image/computer generate a relationship with us. We no longer work on the computers but rather work with them. This concept has then questioned further what is live and mediated performance? Are they the same? If a mediated image is translated to the audience as being live due to its AI therefore the mediated = live.
The artists have focused on the culture of the time in terms of the digital era. However, they have tried to develop their work ahead of what is accessible to the general public. They want to advance their art form technologically to produce a higher standard of image art. Their recent ideas are based on the resolution of a picture and are therefore trying to create images that are flawless in its quality of resolution. Kaiser and Downie have integrated artists, engineers and scientists to produce a new form of performance art work. They have embraced the digital culture, hybridity and the interactive digital media to create “live performance.”
April 12, 2010
2nd Negative Week 3 Debate Brent Davidson
Mediatised performances can only be seen as a remediation of what was essentially and originally live performances. If television was a remediation of theatre and now theatre is being remediated by television is it safe to say that it is all just a new way of looking at the original theatrical experience? That is to say that the intimate nature of a theatre performance has been changed due to the preeconcieved notions of television. Not to say that it has been mediated, but that it has merely adapted to a more savvy audience who, unlike the past, might need more from a theatrical production.
If there was truely no destinction between the different forms of acting, theatre, television and film, why is it that there are seemingly many different courses and schools of training for such a thing. I am not talking about the difference between NIDA and VCA I am talking about the difference between an acting for television course and an acting for theatre course. If the two mediums have become so blurred, why not just have a generic acting course that one hopes will be able to transcend media.
Auslander states that the aim of musical concerts “is to reproduce the artist’s music videos as nearly as possible in a live setting on the assumption that the audience comes to the live show expecting to see what it has already seen on television.”
Yes the reason why people might go to a live concert is to see their favourite performer recreate their video clips, or to see their favourite musical that they have watched at home a million times. But the destinguishing factor is the live aspect, to say that it will be a perfect replication is going considerably too far, it is at one of these performances that the audience is more aware of mistakes. There would be nothing more exciting than going to See Beyonce live in concert and seeing her trip during the single ladies dance and there are two reasons for this. It is an experience that you share with the performer and the giant audience and it proves that the performer is infact a real person who makes mistakes and not some perfect tv reproduced robot. The appeal of theatre and live performance is the possibility of something going wrong and the exciting way in which it might be fixed. This cannot be said as true for tv or film, both of which can be edited into a perfect representation of what the director initially wanted.
Auslander continues to talk about immediacy and intimacy with the performance and the performers. It is clear however he fails to grasp the idea of immediacy and intimacy with other members of the audience. There is no way a mediatised version of lets say a stand up comedian could match up to seeing the performer live. It will give the viewer an idea of what they are like but when put in the same physical location as anywhere from 10 - 10 000 of the performers other fans and see how they feel about the performance then. This intimacy with fellow audience members is something that is removed from Auslanders argument. When asking someone what their experience was like at a concert or sporting event they are less likely to tell you, watching the screen was great, but more likely to let you know whether they enjoyed it and what the crowd was like.
For example when I was at the Robbie William’s concert in 2005, the entire audience sang his song ‘better man’ as he played his guitar, only singing a few words. The intimacy of every member of the audience, which would have been a lot at the soccer ground (that one near moore park) was considerable as the performance was coming from every audience member. The difference with a mass produced video clip or broadcasted television spot is that one may walk away, go to the bathroom, have a distraction like a child, partner or phone ringing thus giving the viewer a new point of focus and a new primary concern, it doesn’t follow the fully immersive experience of a live performance, concert of event. The main point is that intimacy and immediacy can also come from those who are viewing not only the performance being viewed.
Sorry this was not posted sooner. I don't know what happend
April 11, 2010
1st Speaker for the Affirmative. Emily Newbould
Dance + Virtual = Virtual .. (1st debate wk 5- first speaker for the affirmative)
The concept behind Auslander’s statement that Dance when combined with Virtual or mediatised representations equates to a newly Virtual experience is complex. We the affirmative believe that when you take a live dance performance and combine it with mediatised elements you have in fact created a Virtual experience distinct from its components. In our argument we identify some key points of reference for this case and we the affirmative believe that dance is not removed from the equation but infact fused together or combined with virtual components to create a new virtual experience for audiences.
Firstly, I would like to define Auslander’s meaning of ‘virtual’ as being the performance of a function that isn’t present or live, for example dancers on a screen or projector that is relayed from elsewhere - Biped by Paul Kaiser is an example of this. Auslander believes that multi-media performances are virtual and that live performances have seen a transition influenced by the evolution of music and TV. Audiences now see a variety of digital image movement and composition on video projection screens as well as live performance and dance on stage, and this is what triggers certain virtual moments and experiences for audiences, they are engaging in a virtual and mediatized performance which as Auslander states “A fusion that we see as taking place within a digital environment that incorporates live elements as part of its raw material” (Auslander pg. 28). We the affirmative believe this concept of fusion to be fundamental when arguing that dance + virtual = virtual.
I will argue that virtual elements are more active, live and interactive than simply moving bodies of dancers on stage; and that these digital images or projections infact enhance the live performance and push technologies between the audience and the performers. Furthermore, I believe video screens provoke discussion and thought and produce a visible effect on the audience, without obliterating the body. Infact, when these things are combined it becomes something altogether new.
Our second speaker Rosie, will expand on my points of virtual performances pushing the boundaries of the relationship between the audience and the performer, using examples like Biped by Paul Kaiser and Glow by Chunky Move. In addition, the second speaker will discuss virtual dance software, which is now being used in performance to choreograph dance that further demonstrates the power of technology and its ability to enhance the body’s natural abilities and limits.
The affirmative’s third speaker Jess, will sum up our argument that dance + virtual = virtual, a fusion of two forms to create a virtual experience for audiences or rather a new form established which expands multi media performance.
Auslander’s argument that the ‘’ubiquity of reproductions of performance results in a depreciation of the live presence, which can only be compensated by making the perceptual experience of the live as much as possible like that of the mediatised’’ explores the idea of taking the presence out of the notion of performance. The video screens and projectors enable choreographing and computer design to exist in 2 places at once. On stage and on screens which are recorded elsewhere, therefore dance and virtual correspond and interact with each other, as well as interacting with audiences to create new virtual experiences. As Auslander states “video and digital media currently possess greater cultural presence than live bodies; they become the framing elements of any performance that incorporates both live and mediated elements and the live elements will be perceived through the frame and will be seen in terms of the video or digital media, not the other way around”. This does by no means rule out the use of live bodies on stage, but it does suggest that mediatised elements have begun to dramatically influence live performance and dancers are just another component that adds to the performance, similar to the lights, stage, music and digital projections.
Additionally, Paul Kaiser’s suggestion that the “more we embellish dance with technology, the more audiences may start longing to see the real thing again; real dancers in real time” is contrasted by his acknowledgement that “we can’t turn back the clock’’. Therefore, these new developments in live performances are culturally dominant and a part of modern audience expectation and although it may well be the case that dance has begun to take on a different role in performance, it is by no means disregarded just reinvented.
In conclusion, the affirmative believes that Dance + Virtual allows for collaboration, both aspects rendered together create a fully embodied performance. When these two separate entities come together they enhance one another, allow for maximum audience and performer interaction and ultimately possess greater cultural presence. This intervention of performance transforms into something else, it is no longer dance or media, but rather something virtual. And by virtual I mean something that exists in the mind or imagination that is created or simulated by the means of a computer or digital software. If both elements weren’t used in a performance, we the affirmative feel that something would be lost, without one another this wouldn’t be a true experimental performance in theatre; a virtual experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)