I-Cinema Reflection

I found the I-cinema to be a unique experience for myself and it helped show me the different ways technology can be used to enhance a performance. Although it was not a live performance the 360 degree sphere screen completely submerge me into the films to give the feeling you were watching a live performance. This experience coincides with Auslander’s theory of ‘liveness’ and how performances are now reliant on using technological advances of lighting, sound and image projection. Auslander believed that performances need to utilize new and innovative technologies to make a performance unique. As he claimed “Live performance now often incorporates mediatisation such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies…as soon as electric amplification is used, one might say that an event is mediatised.” (Auslander, pg24). To my surprise was the way the films narrative was constructed. There was an almost theatrical performance with multiple things occurring at once. It was up to the audience to decide which part of the action they wanted to focus their attention on.

This idea was most evident in the film ‘there is still time brother’. I felt as I was in control of the narrative of the story, and I was constantly shifting my attention to the different actions on the screen out of fear of missing out on an important aspect of the story. I feel that this constant shift in storyline was important in not only maintaining my focus but keeping me thinking about what is not presented in front of me at that time. The luxury of the I-cinema as apposed to a normal cinema was that if one was concerned about finding the deeper meaning of the film there were other parts of the screen to look at to gain information. The experience for everyone in the I-cinema is clearly different based on the character they were viewing. For me the character crackling the chip packet and eating the chips seemed to be the lead character in the storyline. For me his actions and storytelling was most interesting and I often found myself lost in what he was doing, while the other characters merely provided background noises.

In ‘place hampi’ I did not feel as immersed in the performance as I did with the Wooster group’s however I enjoyed the use of the 3-D glasses and it allowed me to get comfortable with the concept of the I-cinema. This piece displayed the vast potential the I-cinema has to utilize technology for the audience’s experience. ‘Place hampi’ was more focused on dimensions and space and the image that stood out for me was the shot of Angkor Wat in Cambodia. As I have visited the site myself it was unique to view it from a three dimensional view completely surrounding me. This concept of connecting to our natural environment and not to humans is supported by Auslander’s theory of ‘liveness’ as he claims “the word ‘live’ has also come to refer to connections and interactions with non-human agents (Auslander, pg 89).

I felt Auslander’s theory of creating a live performance through technology was definitely present in the piece Eavesdrop. The piece for me felt like I was watching a theatrical performance on stage. This performance was an extension of the Wooster’s group’s concept of controlling the narrative as we were able to control the volume and determine which characters could speak. Unfortunately the experience was slightly damaged as it was intended for the audience to be able to simply walk up to the characters to shift the conversation; instead a microphone was used to change the sound. Nevertheless this piece was interactive and live, and it immersed the audience in the performance and allowed the interpretation of the performance through their on engagement with the piece. Margaret Morse’s theory is present in this piece as she claimed “A machine that thus ‘interacts’ with the user even at this minimal level can produce a feeling of ‘liveness’ and a sense of the machine’s agency” (M. Mores, pg90).

By Gavin Broll
z3252428

iCinema Reflection

Entering the iCinema complex, we are told that it was first built as an art piece and then consequently funded to aid miners by simulating live sites. This alone gives the audience member a scope and overview of how powerful this technology is. A technology that is not simply used as a digital art form, but one which can immerse the user into a simulated interface that allows interactivity and a cyborgian extension of the self. Auslander states that “Live performance now often incorporates mediatisation such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies. This has been the case to some degree for a long time, of course: as soon as electric amplification is used, one might say that an event is mediatised.” (Auslander, 24). I feel this is particularly poignant in the way which iCinema wishes to integrate its viewers into its 360 degree world.

Before we're allowed into the iCinema arena, we're asked to put a pair of 3D glasses on, walking through we enter a dark room with very little lighting but a lot of large screens. There is a control podium in the middle of the room where everything is easily manipulated and we're told the room is full of sensors which interact with us as we walk towards the screens, allowing a completely interactive environment for the audience.

The first piece we're shown is "Sydney Journey" where we're transported into a car travelling through Sydney, over the ANZAC Bridge and getting caught up in the usual Sydney traffic. The experience is, at first, quite disorientating and nauseating as the movement is sped-up and the 360 degree views stretch further than the human eye can usually see. I felt like this piece extended the scope of human sense and made great use of time-lapse imagery to manipulate the viewer's understanding of sight, integrating the notion that not everything you see is real because there is so much more than you don’t. Playing with the idea that the mediatised is now more “real” than the “live”.

After experiencing “Sydney Journey”, we move on to fully explore iCinema’s ability to expand our senses in “Hampi” a collection of panoramic views and still images of beautiful places in the world. Here the audience is transported into a world which seems unreal, knowing that they are experiencing it in a built environment with many others, while wearing a pair of 3D glasses. However, this is challenged by the amazingly scenic views of real places in seemingly real time, an accompanying soundscape and 3D images, which move through the screen and appear almost tangible. Would this be considered a mediated reality?

Next we are introduced to “Eavesdrop”, a performance piece in which the characters are condemned to live out the last minutes of their lives over and over again. Here, the audience is told that when experienced fully, the sensors can detect where you are standing and therefore sound is altered accordingly, creating the sense of eavesdropping. Not only that, words appear to replace the thoughts of a disabled woman who is unable to speak the entire piece, producing a hyper-reality, wherein the viewer is witness to more than the usual human capacity to eavesdrop. Through this real-time piece, the audience is allowed to participate and watch from which ever aspect, angle or direction they wish to take, controlling the performance and creating one every step we take. Listen to each all the way through, walk through the entire cast or simply stand from afar and try to hear everything at once, this makes the audience the creator or their own performance.

Auslander explains that “…we now experience such work as a fusion, not a con-fusion, of realms, a fusion that we see as taking place within the digital environment that incorporates the live elements as a part of its raw material” (Auslander, pg. 38). I feel this especially true in the case of iCinema, wherein every visit is a performance of the decisions of the viewer, where pieces are created to rely on the mediated performances but each is unique to all individuals, playing on traditional views of theatre and live performance.

Jan Duong (z3218787)

icinema relfection week 6 blog

The icinema experience for me was a very different way of visualizing performance. The sphere screen totally captured and immersed me into the performance. I felt I was actually there within the moving images.

Firstly, the journey of Hampi was the first project we viewed. It was a new sensation wearing the 3D glasses watching something still through a screen that transcended you from physical reality to virtual reality. Even though I have used 3D glasses before, watching 3D films; however, seeing images through a 360 sphere environment is a complete different sensation to just watching something 3D on a flat screen. It allows more immersion for the audience. With this technology, it has emerged digital and the physical blurring our sense of distance and time. We are now able to visit historical sites without having to travel to the place, in that, we can restore decayed areas through the site and also prevent further damage. On top of that, 3D animation is included, which allows audience to experience and interact with mythical creatures of the PLACE-Hampi. We are now able to reach and explore to places we cannot reach physically with foot. We are able to experience mythical creatures coming to live mediated through this panoramic sphere. This project is something new and experimental, however, I believe in future it will continue to grow and immerse into our everyday lives.

Another memorable project through the icinema experience was the Eavesdrop project. Within the spherical environment, we are positioned in the centre of a performance. As the audience we are able to interact with the situation, and ‘eavesdrop’ each conversation as we hold the microphone towards a panel. It is a pity that we are not able to experience the sensation that was intended by the creators, where we as audiences are able to walk up to the conversation, and the tracking device will track the movement hence able to project the voice louder enabling us to eavesdrop. This project allows the audience to emerge with the performance piece. We are thus, presented with the absence of the creator; and confronted by the freedom to interpret the performance ourselves. This is presented and interacted through real time, we as the audience as able to eavesdrop in each conversation at will, the different fragments we choose to hear will present us with different insight to this performance piece. Of course, if we repeat the process we will be able to gain more insight each time we review this piece, and eavesdrop on more information that might complete this performance piece more. This idea of emergence media, is mediated through the absence of the artist. It is purely live and interactive, where the audience themselves are able to experience this performance and understand or interpret this performance through their on engagement with the piece.

Lastly, the most impressive project to me was the T-Visionarium. T-Visionarium is a revolution in television viewing and archiving; this mass archive of television segments was presented to us in 3D. We are then able to actively engage and interact with the this information data through a remote control. With various filter systems, we are able to actively chose and move any segment from the projection. Through this we are now able to experience the sensation of a floating information pool, where data is everywhere.

Icinema has presented us with new ways of engaging with media; new ways of live performances. Even though without physical people performing in real time, we are able to use technology to interact and immerse audience into this virtual space that transcends the physical.

As I missed the iCinema experience, I have explored the website and discussed other encounters with my fellow students. Through this exploration and my knowledge of Auslander’s theory of liveness, I have analysed one of the performance pieces seen at the iCinema studios; ‘Double District’ by Saburo Teshigawara and developed with Volker Kuchelmeister in 2008.

‘The six-channel stereo video dance installation is configured in the Re-Actor system, an hexagonal projection environment offering the audience a mobile and versatile platform for sophisticated artistic and cultural manifestation and a physically immersive three-dimensional space of representation that constitutes an augmentation and amalgamation of real and virtual realities’ (http://www.icinema.unsw.edu.au/projects/prj_saburo.html). Pre-choreographed solos and duets were filmed from multiple areas around the stage. Consequently, a hexagonal array of screens displays a temporally synchronized dance performance from six different viewpoints. In effect, they have created a dance performance that is seemingly performed in the round. As I didn’t experience this work in person, I cannot say whether the same movements performed live and in the round with the audience walking around the stage would give the same effect.

Whilst I have witnessed this style of 3D cinemation in movies such as ‘Alice in Wonderland’, this style of set up brings not only new perspectives, but also the ability to view and compare these viewpoints simultaneously. Of course the idea of exploring multiple perspectives has already been utilized in film editing through different cuts and camera angles, however, ‘Double District’ allows all of these perspectives to be viewed in synch and therefore creates a new level of perception.

“Live performance now often incorporates mediatisation such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies” (Auslander, 1999, pg. 24). For me, this statement by Auslander has epitomises the tendency to not only utilize new technologies, but rely on them to create a ‘successful’ and innovative performance. For me, projects such as ‘Double District’ make me contemplate the nature of dance as a performance in today’s society. Are the new intricacies of dance film and technology seen in this work just an exploration of dance mechanics or a way to enhance the entire production? Does the mediatisation of the work add new levels of understanding or intrigue that would be lost if the choreography was seen as a ‘live’ performance? Is the un-mediatised live form of dance becoming obsolete?

Bolter and Grusin, as Auslander has quoted, suggest “earlier technologies are struggling to maintain their legitimacy by remediating newer ones” (Bolter and Grusin 1996: 352, Auslander 1999, pg. 24). Can live dance performance be seen as one of these remediated technologies? It is my belief that whilst the present enhances the past and creates a new, the past is still both relevant and prevalent within today’s society. Without this original art form, ‘Double District’ would cease to exist.

iCinema Reflection

Stepping into the iCinema Centre for the first time was a fantastic experience, which challenged my senses and inspired me to think about cinema and video art in some interesting new ways. The experience was not strictly a live one, but departing from Auslander’s concepts of liveness, some of the works displayed in iCinema prompted new questions in approaching the debate on what constitutes a ‘live’ work. Some of the pieces we viewed in iCinema were very dissimilar in terms of tone and purpose, with some utilising the artistic and sensorial potentials of the medium in better ways than others.

Although the 3D-enhanced images of villages and ancient ruins from India and Cambodia were designed to immerse the viewer in a realistic experience, placing us in a hyper-real experience where pillars and tree branches seemed to extend from the screen and into the room around us – the effects of these highly-constructed pictures were diminished by an overall awareness of the artifice. The transparent spots in the illusions, the unnatural colours and the thick, heavy 3D glasses on our faces were a distraction – and a distraction which in this case did not endow the work with creative possibility, but only damaged its effectiveness. This is a form which will need some development, but one which I think will produce some very interesting works in the future.

Possibly the most successfully immersive work we viewed however, was the Spherecam work, where the audience was treated to a 360-degree view of drives through Bondi beach, and through roadways in the city including across the Anzac Bridge. The initial visual effect – of being completely surrounded by a moving landscape, with every possible angle of the environment in full view, filling even the peripheral corners of our vision – was astounding. I was completely engrossed in the experience of watching the world around me onscreen, and I actually felt transported by the remarkable sense of physical place created by the enveloping work.

In terms of Auslander’s ideas of “liveness”, the iCinema artworks we were able to view (and take part in) offered a refreshing perspective on the possibilities of interactive work in film and suggested some new viewing practices which I had not encountered before. In David Pledger and Jeffrey Shaw’s Eavesdrop (2004), we were able to watch several scenes between ten different people all taking place simultaneously, and by controlling the volume of each individual conversation, the audience was able to choose which of these conversations we wanted to listen in on – but only ever one at a time. A version of liveness was realised in the fact that the performance was a deliberately interactive work, relying upon the viewer’s involvement and active viewing choices to guide and essentially create the narratives that were seen. Everything we saw had been pre-recorded, and could therefore be replayed, but the fact that this work could be re-watched in a number of ways unique to the viewer, reestablished it as an artwork which always unfolded in a live context.

Likewise, the Wooster Group’sTHERE IS STILL TIME.. BROTHER was a live work in the sense that it relied upon the audience’s active and shifting attention to tell its story – and what we ultimately took away from the viewing experience depended largely and how and where we chose to look. In the case of the Wooster Group’s work, the viewing experience was one of active and enthusiastic distraction. I felt my attention drifting to different screens as time went on, and although I tried to follow the narration of one character, I found that after a while there were far more interesting and relevant events taking place on different screens – an example being the visual of a fire burning on one screen, accompanied by the crackling sound of a crisps packet on another. Although at first I assumed the crackling noises came from the soundtrack to the fire I was seeing, with a glance around I soon realised how I had been tricked. So much was happening at one time, and I found that rather than trying to take everything in at once, I could creatively choose how to view the work based upon what interested me as a viewer.

THERE IS STILL TIME... and Eavesdrop could be experienced in a similar way to how one might experience a traditionally live, theatrical piece. For instance, in a play we might have various characters acting, reacting, moving and communicating across the stage space at one time, and unlike when we watch a film, the audience member has far greater freedom in his or her ability to choose where to look, where to focus attention and ultimately how to watch the action unfold. In Eavesdrop we are offered an almost theatrical work of film – the story is unfolding in fragmented parts all around us, all of these individual moments somehow interrelated and, importantly, all part of the one piece. Where we look and listen is up to us – and much like watching a play, if we miss something, it is lost. We can watch the piece again from another angle later, but for now the moment has moved on and there is too much to take in for us to see it all in one viewing. In this way the work is a creatively realised purveyor of frustration – a reflector on our experience of the real world around us. There is simply too much to see and do for us to experience it all. But as we see in THERE IS STILL TIME..., by independently choosing how to direct our attention we can find meaning in the moments we create for ourselves – and perhaps see and hear things that other people might have missed.

iCinema Reflection

iCinema was developed to assist with researching interactive cinema works. It allows for the use of state of the art systems and technologies to deliver to the audience a mesmerizing and interactive environment. AVIE, the work that is currently being explored, plays with immersive sound and visual imagery to deliver an overwhelming experience.

As you enter the Advanced Visualisation and Interaction Environment, also known as AVIE, you are encapsulated within a 360° floor to ceiling array of cinematic screens, shape tracking systems and state of the art audio. To complete the already overwhelming package of material, 3D glasses were also issued which inevitably created a personal sensation and added even more depth to the piece. You had entered an area of hyper real and wherever you watched, it was captivating.

As the immersive visualisation and sonification began, the audience was taken on a sensorial journey through different and alternative segmented experiments. Interlaced within these experiments were engaging, mesmerizing and highly impressive advancements in technology. Some of which included embedding animations onto images, motion capture dancing, use of sphere cams and parallax effects.

The feeling of being situated in a place, without physically being there, is a sensation that is thoroughly being explored with technology. Sydney Journey, an experiment displayed in AVIE, takes the viewer on a fascinating visual ride along the streets of Sydney by the use of a sphere cam mounted to the top of a ute. The sensation that this gave me was overwhelming. I was highly impressed with how it made my body feel as though I was physically travelling along within the ute. The sensation that occurred can be described in no other words but real and live.

Having the ability to listen in on other people’s conversations has been done by possibly every human on earth. Eaves Dropping, displayed in AVIE, explores this in a virtual form with the use of shape tracking systems. Being surrounded by multiple conversations, the viewer is able to approach the conversation that they would like to eaves drop in on and do so in a hyper real way. My first impression to this was how technical and multi-layered this experiment was. Being able to listen to a primary conversation whilst still hearing minor ones was a sensation that felt so close to real life behaviour.

In regards to liveness, I feel as though the definition of this cannot only being exclusive to the human being present, but also involve the physical attributes that surround and the interactions that occur between. Auslander states that “virtual entities respond to us in real time, they feel live to us, and this may be the kind of liveness we now value”. This being said, I feel as though the AVIE experiment is really pushing the boundaries as to how far a human can be immersed into a virtual form such as this. With technology advancements being discovered everyday, the definition of liveness has shifted to one that integrates these advancements.

Therefore, the experimental work of AVIE is an impressive form of virtual technology. Experiments that were shown, thoroughly explored the immersive visualisation and sonification that they set out to portray. Multiple sensations of the hyperreal and liveness were in abundance whilst witnessing the experiment.

iCinema Reflection - Maribelle Oliva z3187080

The iCinema experience was one which supports Auslanders theory of liveness in where “live and recorded performances thus coexisted clearly as discrete, complementary experiences, necessitating no particular effort to distinguish them” (Auslander, 2008, p59).

I found the experience to be overwhelming with the use of the 360 degree screens and 3D effects in being it was no longer another movie, television or laptop screen but one that surrounded me and placed me in the location. The iCinema was interesting in that it enables the audience to be immersed in and interactive with the performance through the screens and technologies.

The first viewing of the Rainforest enabled us to see a still image in 3D and have it zoomed and have it pan across us. It was a strange feeling having the screen surround me in such a way that had taken you out of the a simple audience viewer’s seat but blurred the lines of reality and recording technologies to create a liveness where the audience feels spatially co present to the location. The 3D glasses further created the reality. The 3D glasses also helped impede the reality in some of the projectors weren’t working to some parts of the screen in making the image 3D took the audience out of the experience through technical difficulties.
The Secret Angkor shots were explained to us as being able part of research into taking panoramic 360 shots as a way of preserving the image and location as it is deteriorating. I immediately felt there was no need to now travel over to the Angkor Watts or Place Hampi as I felt I had already visited it in a 3D experience. This connected to Auslander’s idea that 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”(Morse 1998, p15). It is the audiences experience of being spatially co-present which makes creates a live experience (Auslander 2008, p62)

The one which stuck with me the most was the Spherecam on the back of a ute which sped us over Anzac Bridge and Bondi Beach. Being at these locations many times it blurred the lines of what is possible by being able to simultaneously record 360 degree angles with 12 different cameras. I was in awe that this type of perspective could be placed around the audience to completely immerse surrounding images in such a way. I kept trying to catch this by spinning around the screen to ensure I did not miss anything in the same way you would when actually at the back of a ute.
There is still time by The Wooster Group and Eavesdrop focused on how the sound and performance could be user defined and although all shots were different were still linked. It went outside limitations of what is beyond your screen by using the relative screens around you. I found this connected to the Morse’s idea that “technologies also [entail] an ideology of liveness whose source lies in our interaction with the machine itself rather than the connections to the outside world permitted by it.” (Morse 1998, p15)


Auslander, Philip ‘Live Performance in a Mediatized Culture’ Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, Second Edition (Routledge, London and New York, 2008 [1999]), pp58-63
Morse, Margaret, Virtualities: Television, Media Art and Cyberculture (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998)

I-Cinema Reflection

The I-cinema visit was both an intriguing live and mediatised visual/audio experience which helped me appreciate Auslander's theories of liveness, immersion and interactivity created by advanced media technologies. Although I was provided with 3D glasses when I walked into the space which created an awareness of the mediatised, the projected images and sounds on the 360 degree screen surrounding me was still a live and immersive experience.

With the AVIE projects (Advanced Visualisation and Interaction Environment), I was met with a number of panoramic 360 degree views of various environments in 3D graphics.

This included a close-up view and panning up of a 'Rainforest' environment which made me feel like I was really present/immersed in the actual environment. The audio sounds of the rainforest with the waterfall and birds could also be heard which added to the sense of liveness.

The next environment was 'Place Hampi' where once again, felt I was physically present amongst the landscape of the cultural ruins. The idea of being able to see and explore these cultural heritage sites, without actually needing to visit the real environment (which may be rare to find/challenging to reach) is greatly beneficial to the aims of both cultural learning/understanding and historical preservation. I was able to experience this rare location without needing to physically trample over/destroy the site, hence providing the sense of liveness within a mediatised space.
However, the incorporation of animation (animated cartoon-like images of religious gods) within the 3D environment brought back my awareness that this is not a completely live experience. This made me shift my focus/attention to the animated figures, e.g. the flying bird-like god as I watched it move across the screen. As a result, it made me aware of the idea that the mediatised can sometimes take precedence over the 'live', which is similar to being at a live concert, in which people tend to watch the large video screens rather than the actual live singers/band.

Next, 'Sydney Harbour' which consisted of a tracking shot of a car ride along the roads created a seemingly realistic sensory experience of being in the car in regards to the sense of speed and movement. However at the end when the images sped up extremely fast, the sense of the live was lost and it felt as if I was just watching a video being fast-forwarded to an unrealistic speed.

Overall with AVIE, the sense of intimacy and immediacy was quite apparent due to the detailed 3D graphic imagery and sounds, as well as the 360 degree immersive view of the environment, thus, supporting Auslander's concept of liveness in a mediatised space.

Moving on, the next project was 'Eavesdrop' which was highly interactive and hence gave a sense of the live- as if I was actually eavesdropping on all the characters' private/personal conversations. The spectator was able to engage with the various characters as well as being able to freely choose to listen/focus on certain characters by pointing the remote control directly at the characters on the screen. Mediatised zoom and pan functions added to the ability to focus/engage with certain characters. Not only visually, but the concept of 'eavesdropping' was also cleverly done with the use of sound. From afar, all I could hear was general murmurs of the characters together in the room. However when the user pointed the remote to certain characters the volume of the the speaker would increase, while other conversations in the room would decrease to a low murmur. Hence, increasing our engagement with certain characters on screen as we listened to their narratives.

Similarly, the Wooster project allowed the spectator the freedom to choose/shift their focus on certain areas/characters on the screen. As we looked around us, things were happening all at the same time along a linear time narrative, but like reality, the individual can decide to listen/watch a particular part depending on their own personal preferences, interests or values.

It was interesting however, that this piece made the audience more aware of the mediatised technologies and processes to create a sense of liveness. This is evident with the one guy talking directly to us explaining and breaking down the process of production. For e.g. he addresses the audience and shows us the use of multiple cameras in the mirror, as well as showing the closeup view of him creating the 'cackling of fire' sounds with his hands and chip packet, while at the same time, there is an image of logs burning with fire. Hence, furthering my understanding that both the mediatised and live are able to work together to create an interactive and engaging audio-visual experience.

iCinema Reflection

The iCinema experience brought together many elements and theories that have been introduced in this course. Upon entering the iCinema space the audience is able to encounter and question what is live, as well as who and what is taking part in creating the performance. Space and time are constructed by these technologies which are able to immerse the entire human mind and body. The technology and enclosed screens create a feeling that the audience has been removed from the outside world. The experience is not temporal, but rather a fusion and shifting between the past, present and future, all in the one moment.

As Auslander begins to address the theory of liveness we can understand that what we are experiencing when visiting the iCinema is live. What is felt and seen during this experience can be considered live. However it is not live, the projects have been pre-recorded and reproduced many times before. In Auslander's concept of liveness, iCinema can be approached as a live recording where there is 'a temporal gap between production and reception', and social liveness where there is a 'sense of connection to others' (Auslander 2008, pg61).

Most of the works presented by iCinema are designed to be interactive and immersive. Auslander credits the physical connection, direction and response between audience and technology as another way of experiencing liveness. Feeding into a machine and responding to its output in real time can still be considered a live experience. The opportunity presented by the technology in iCinema intensifies this notion because of the technological abilities available to the audience. One is able to control elements and mechanisms in the visual feature.

Rainforest, Hampi, the Secret Hangkor:
The introductory pieces of work were all based on building an environment, creating a live atmosphere and transporting the audiences into a three dimensional sphere where they can immerse into the scene. This created what iCinema would describe as a digital trompe l'oeil, an optical illusion. However the sensorial liveness is lacking. The fact that one cannot touch and smell the environment automatically switches from fascination to disjunction between what the eye can see and what is really being experienced as live. In trying to create this atmosphere the technology disrupts this connection.

Eavesdrop:
David Pledger and Jeffrey Shaw produced a multi-narrative piece with seven frames to set up the 360 degree perimeter for the story. The literary sense of the project is removed when the bomb explodes. The idea of liveness is interupted for the characters are made to relive the last nine minutes. However the piece becomes live through the interactive and immersive qualities it possesses. The ability to control the space, what is being heard and seen animates the project, making it personal and engaging. The ability to activate the voice recording of a character's mind, again disconnects the idea of liveness but intensifies the notion of immersion, as the audience is drawn into the surroundings by the inimate set up of the frame.

There is still time...brother:
The Wooster group use a sphere camera to employ a different type of intimate space to engage, and immerse the audience. As the 'characters' focus into the camera, they aim to grab the attention of the audinece, they speak directly to you, and you become immersed as another player in their game. Similar to Eavesdrop, the audience can manipulate what is being heard and seen, in temrs of focus and attraction, yet they cannot change the images that have been issued and pre-recorded. It remains live in the sense that we are watching and hearing it in the now, but our ability to affect the content makes in live only from our side of the screen, where we can watch and interact with the work.

What we need to understand is that these pieces were originally designed to be accessed and viewed as art. There is much potential and engagment between the technologies and how they can produce and explore liveness. The interactive and immersive qualities are key features that constitute to the liveness of iCinema.

Glossary

Sonification : the use of non-speech audio to convey information or perceptualize data. The production of sound.

Equirectangular Projection: a projection along a flat plane often made into a cylindrical shape. Eg. a map of the world.

Museological: the theory of managing a museum.

iCinema Reflection - Ebony Turski

I entered the iCinema experience with great expectations after some brief research regarding it. The overall experience indeed met my expectations with vivid images immersing me into the performance.

The ancient ruins and landscapes of Hampi were very mesmerizing. The detail in the 3D images and audio were extremely convincing and the clarity of picture superb. However, the missing sensorial elements of touch and smell did not allow for the images to become more than just that, images. For me personally, I did not completely experience the idea of sensorial overload within this piece. I believe that this technology could be used as an alternative to the ‘real’ thing but I am unsure that many individuals would wish to pursue this experience over actually visiting the landscape. I am also unsure whether or not the idea of using the technology to preserve land and ruins may be successful.

The tour around Sydney was interesting yet too familiar. Due to the fact that I was so familiar with the Sydney landscape being presented, I found this piece to have far less an impact than that previous. I did not become immersed in the images even though they presented more content than the static images presented prior. It would be interesting to see, however, whether this would differ for a person not so familiar with the content presented.

The Wooster Group’s “There is still Time…Brother” was not shown as it would have been in a performance environment. We were given the entire footage of the group rather than being forced to watch one section at a time. I thought that the ability to choose which part of the screen to watch and follow was more effective than the cinematic idea of introducing boundaries as to what the spectator could watch. By leaving the performance as we experienced it I felt that there was a better sense of interactivity created. It makes me wonder that if The Wooster Group was using technology such as a sphere cam to create a lively experience why would they subtract the realistic element of visual choice and allow the pictures to become somewhat cinematic?

Out of all pieces shown throughout the I cinema presentation I thought the dance performance “Double District” was best able to immerse me into the performance and capture the essence of the live. Given the ability to choose at which angle you could view the dancing bodies without having to physically move around the room really accentuated the liveliness within it. The fact that I was so immersed with the movement could also be due to the fact that I could relate to the dance content more than that of the other pieces. I thought this technology may also make a good teaching tool in the future. The ability to show a dancer their movement from multiple angles would be effective in correcting alignment and technique to ultimately improve their performance – a tool that any dancer would gladly utilise.

I thought “Double District” was a good example of Auslander’s idea of mediatised dance forms. In this case it is extremely evident that the fusion of realms – live and mediatised – occur through the combination of live elements, such as visual choice, and digital or mediatised material. I do find it difficult to define whether this piece should be considered live or virtual; an issue I am sure Auslander would have been glad to pursue further.

Ebony Turski

z3254749

iCinema Reflection - Jaimelee Marasigan

My expectations of the iCinema were nothing compared my experience. I originally thought it was going to be similar to the experience we get when seeing a movie at the cinemas in 3D especially when the first thing we did when we entered the room was pick up a pair of 3D glasses. When we entered the room I realized that this iCinema experience was going to be different as the 360 degree projection screen projected still images all around us of what we were about to see. The surrounding screens show and reflect Auslander’s theory of liveness that “live performance now often incorporates mediatization such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies” (Auslander, 1999, pg. 24). It really was a unique experience as I found myself actually feeling immersed and enveloped in the images and footage presented to us.

The first footage presented to us of The Rainforest really fascinated me as the sphere-cam panned up and down the vegetation. It was like a virtual experience that made you feel like you could be anywhere without actually having to be there. I felt this same feeling with the footage from Place Hampi however, when those virtual Gods were placed in the environment I was taken out of that enveloped state and brought back to reality.

I really enjoyed the Sydney Journey as it was a perfect example and demonstration of how the sphere-cam works. Luckily I do not get motion sickness however, when the footage went into fast forward mode I did experience a similar feeling to what I get when I’m on a rollercoaster or a really fast ride.

I really wanted to explore Eavesdrop a bit more. If there was less of us in the group, I would have loved to walk around to each scene and listen to each of their conversations for myself. I really liked the concept behind Eavesdrop as it made me want to watch it over and over again just so that I could hear the story behind each group. This piece did not give me the same sensorial experience as the previous works but it did make me want to explore all the possibilities of my interaction.

The work by the Wooster Group, There’s still time… Brother, showed a piece that was created around the sphere-cam. There was so much going on in this work that I did not know where to focus my attention and so I felt lost in a way. I found that I was constantly trying to find a connection between what was going on in one side to the other and in turn experienced extreme sensory overload.

In saying all this, overall I felt that the iCinema was an extremely unique experience. It definitely explored Auslander’s theory that the live is now working with mediatisation and in turn giving us a different sensory experience too.

ICinema Reflection Fiona Hallam

This reflection will be discussing the impressions, thoughts and words that arose and the relation to Auslander’s view on liveness from our tutorial excursion to the iCinema Centre used for Interactive Cinema Research. The iCinema research program focuses on research into digital interactivity for benchmark applications across the arts, culture and industry. Knowing only minimal information created a curiosity and anticipation that was heighten when receiving glasses upon entering to view the three dimensional works.

The museological structure of the iCinema encapsulates each viewer by its spherical, three hundred and sixty degree scrim. This instantly immerses viewers to an interactive setting and allows viewers to see beyond the frame of a photo or movie.

This first image that was displayed created a hyper real space in which we were replaced in the exact position that we had met outside the scientia building. This was difficult to comprehend that we were inside as the location we were surrounded by visually was outside.

As viewers of the slideshow we were taken on visual tour to many sacred national historical landmark destinations this achieved with the use of stereoscopic panoramas. The use of sonification assisted in immersing viewers to the surrounding image and location. This was accomplished successfully in the panoramic view of the rainforest with the tranquil sounds of a rainforest and the use of stereoscopic views panning upwards of this beautiful location giving the essence of walking through the terrain. The sensation of viewing people in front of screen to give the visual effect that they are moving through rainforest was incredible and almost nauseating with the three dimensional effects. This technology is furthermore developed from each slide to the animated figures in India. These figures are captured with another media, motion capture to create movement of a significant god or representation for that country or place. This was utilized in Hampi of India with the Ganesha discussing the Indian heritage and the traditions in the panoramic view of India. These presentations are related to the Auslander’s approach to liveness with liveness forever changing due to many inventions and developments in technology. These presentations of realistic live exhibitions of real spaces in real time.

The spherecam on the back of the ute displaying the streets of Sydney was impressive and I felt very immersed as i felt the motion of myself driving in a car and having the ability to view everything that I would in the real life situation. This application would be beneficial for google earth and google maps to display ones route. The real liveness of this can be questioned as the developments of these places has changed since the filming as the real time and real space of its capture is different to the now.

Eavesdrop was the most immersive and interactive project that we saw on the tutorial excursion. The interactive aspect in Eavesdrop was the ability of walking to the perimeter of the screen and movement trackers sense your relationship to a section of the scrim and a certain table conversation and that audio will be played back to hear that particular conversation. In the live performance the audience were able to zoom in on face of each person and hear their inner mental thoughts. This enhanced the liveness of this production with interacting and becoming immersed more closely to each character. The overwhelming sensorial and auditory aspects of this became almost too much to attach a meaning to each performer, their conversation or their stories.

The Wooster groups performance, 'There is still time brother' was an interesting concept and immersive in its surrounding footage of an entire room filled with many objects and people. With most filmed performances the director chooses where the frame is at all times dictating where the audience views. This three hundred and sixty degree frame the choice is the viewers hands. This creating viewer to have the feeling that if they do not continue to rotate and view all sections of the screen they may miss something. The sonification in this piece was created amongst the performance by each character for another scenario. This stereo imaging was utilized with the image of a campfire displayed and on the opposite side of the room was one character rustling a chip packet to create the sound effect for the fire. This immersing the viewers in another level of intimacy to the sounds.

The liveness of a performance with the chemistry, energy, scents, and magical views and interactions of people and the reactions that come of it are not quite captured through the iCinema projects just yet. But with more developments of this technology these element are inevitable to be captured.

Auslander’s view is that live and mediated performance are mutually dependant for the reasons that they are both historical and experimental which is very evident in each of these works. The use of collaboration of all mediatised technologies and performance aspects allows this mutually dependent relationship to exist.

Auslander argues that the live is continually being recreated in these live performances with the use of filming. This mediatised performance is capturing liveness of one element into another with developments of technology the live is forever changing and being reproduced. The true liveness of one performance can be achieved through the interactivity and immersion of the performance and each of these performances in ICinema achieved this engaging the audience.

In conclusion I believe each of these performance provided many elements of liveness in relation to Auslander’s theory and in the way each ICinema screenings immerse and interact engaging the viewers. I believe the development of technology presenting ICinema and its advancements is intriguing and fascinating but still does not capture all the live essence just yet. The reactions, scents, people interaction, the temperature and many other elements have yet to be achieved in order to feel live to me personally.

GLOSSARY

Stereoscopic

Noting or pertaining to three dimensional vision of any various devices for giving the illusion of depth from two dimensional images or reproductions, as of a photograph or motion picture.

Avatar

A graphical image that represents a person as on the internet. E.g. the disturbed legible city.

Sonification

The production of sound.

Museological

The systematic study of the organization, management and function of a museum.

Sterographic

The art of delineating the forms of solid bodies on a plane.

Fiona Hallam

iCinema - Rosanna Goderie

The traditional movie theatre, as well as its new three dimensional IMAX experience, immerses the spectator cognitively and emotionally through the plot of the linear narrative. iCinema challenges such notions of cinema and narrative in the possibilities granted by the infrastructure AVIE - Advanced Visualisation and Interaction Environment. It is through the break down of fourth wall frontality, via a 360degree stereoscopic and visual surrounding, that the spectator is transported to be immersed in a new virtual environment exceeding reality by its multi-temporal and discontinuous spatial possibilities. A sense of liveness however is not lost in such virtual spaces, but rather as Auslander describes is re-defined to be contextually relevant in relation to cultural circumstance. Such connections and interactions that govern notions of the live, occur as experienced through the iCinema projects, when the agent is non-human and technological.

Place-Hampi illustrates this via its ability to immerse the tutorial group in a sight seeing excursion to the World Heritage sites of Vijayangar in Hampi. Whilst the aim of the project is not to replace the real experience, in this virtual environment we can travel beyond reality and embrace the experience as one uniquely valued in its hybridity. The culturally constructed (and not innate) ‘competitive opposition’ Auslander ascribes to characteristic values of live and mediatised forms, are similar to that of our own comparisons to actual travel experience against the virtual environment iCinema has to offer. This new virtual environment encompasses a variety of mediums including images of the geographical place, but also layered upon are technological components to further ideals of Hindu mythology associated with the sites. Computer graphic animations bring mythical figures ‘to life’, with instance of movement generation as being drawn from a motion capture dance by Lingalayam Dance Company, Sina Azad. Such fusion and co-presence of the mythological and physical realm is familiar to modern society with the very outcome of the iCinema being a result of the College of Fine Arts combining with the Faculty of Engineering. The application is as broad as the product itself being associated across arts, culture and industry.

The nature of immersion in such an environment naturally amounts to a new kind of interactivity and mode of interpretation. Before even involving infra-red camera detectors and controlling devices that prompt the spectator to have a direct effect on the action, the visual overload granted by the panoramic screening forces the viewer to isolate and distinguish gaze. Auslander references Benjamin’s emphasis in the sensory experience as resulting from both nature and historical circumstance. Auslanders theory alludes that our senses are conditioned by mediatisation. Perhaps we can comprehend that the hybrid nature of the iCinema, is resulting in a new sensory awareness?

This excess of affect that promotes a new interactivity, also suggests a different approach to narrative. This idea of challenging the linear narrative by a sensorial overload is explored by the Wooster Project. Whilst dialogue speech draws intentional focus, this is countered as our gaze may be redirected to the various other points of interest. Most memorable to highlight this was whilst words were delivered, a laptop displayed the visual of a campfire, and a packet of chips used to create atmosphere in different areas of the 360degree viewing. This Brechtian technique of showing the mechanics of performance, is furthered by holding up a mirror to reveal the Spherecam which eliminates any suggestion of illusionary replication. In all the projects an awareness of a distinguish from reality was present, and an exploration of possibilities facilitated by multimedia. I strongly don’t think this technology is made and used to make redundant actual experience associated with the ‘natural’ world, but rather explore experimentally the possibilities of interdisciplinary collaboration to construct a hybrid valued in its own right.

REFERENCE LIST

MEFT3353 Performance in a Mediatised Culture - Study Kit. Session 1 2010

- Auslander, P. 1999, 'Live Performance in a Mediatised Culture' Liveness: Performance in a Mediatised Culture, Routledge: London and New York, pp10-44 / pp58-63.

UNSW College of Fine Arts/Engineering. iCinema – Centre for Interactive Cinema Research. Research Areas, Projects, Infrastructure
http://www.icinema.unsw.edu.au/

Del Favero, D. (2009). Expanded cinematic Forms of Narration. iCinema UNSWhttp://www.icinema.unsw.edu.au/papers.html

ICinemaResponse_BrentDavidson_3257109

The I-Cinema experience was a very unique one for any person who is fortunate enough to have the opportunity to experience the interactive and perforative nature of the environment within. The experience is unlike an actual cinematic one but more akin to that of an interactive media based artwork. It seems that the “cinema” title is a way to relate to something that the participant may understand.

The complete visual and audio experience can prove at times a sensorial overload that can at times be disorientating. Which can do one of two things, make the viewer feel fully immersed in the environment they are interacting with or because of the sense of hyperreality completely disassociate the participant. As part of an artwork these two sensations could be very effective if the over all concept needed to use them.

The interactive nature of the works is where Auslander’s concept of liveness might be most visibly viewable, as these works often require the participant to interact with something that will shape the work that is experienced. As such the ‘live’ performance is occurring and effecting the mediated boundaries of the work, often with the ability of pushing them beyond what they might have been originally intended to do. It is the notion that the interaction with the work produces the liveness in the work, making it a live mediated performance.

What is interesting to consider is the way that the ICinema is considered to be able to transport the viewer to a place they would not normally be able to get to or not possibly visit because of erosion or destruction by time (the tourism initiative) It is an interesting concept for it requires you still to go somewhere you normally wouldn’t go in order to go to another place you might not actually be allowed to go to. The ICinema is not widespread commonly accepted technology and even if it was the participant is at all times aware that they are in fact inside the ICinema and not actually at the place they are intended to be, they are merely interacting with highly developed interactive visuals.

While it seems more Virtual Reality technology is needed to be developed to actually transport the viewer to a virtual recreation of a site, the ICinema does provide a new world of opportunities for the interactive arts, constantly exploring new was to interact with technology, art and each other. However, the irony is that to explore such interaction one must use a machine, not the humans that they so plan on exploring. It is an interesting experiment that can only continue to resonate its potentials through out performance, media, technology and the arts.

I-cinema reflection- Laura Benson z3256920

I-Cinema is a medium which allows for a three hundred and sixty degree view of a film or image. This technology helps one become quickly and deeply immersed in the world depicted or shown on screen.

I found it intriguing how capturing something on I-cinema can change a place or image’s importance. The screen can display an image of an ordinary place we are familiar with, such as the outside area at the top of the University steps, and we feel the need to look at the place in detail. This is because we have the notion that anything captured on the screen must have a purpose or be worthy of our gaze. We then spend our time inside the I-cinema turning around so we see every angle, so as not to miss a thing. Whereas if we were outside in the real space, we would not be turning to take in everything around us. In fact, the place itself would seem relatively boring.

The performance viewed that captured the most attention and influenced my senses, was the performance by Not Yet it’s Difficult, called, ‘Eavesdrop’. This piece surrounds you, as the audience, capturing your attention from various angles. This mode of performance is effective in a 360 degree cinema, as we feel bombarded with emotions, sounds and images. As the audience, we feel privileged to be listening in on such important conversations as it surrounds us and we don’t surround it. From that perspective, the piece originally overwhelmed me, making me feel the centre of one big story. The interaction then highlights the significance of us as the central figure, as we get the opportunity to choose what we feel like viewing or who we think has the most important story. Unlike non mediated performances, e.g. on stage, this technology allows for the performance to become layered. The actor does not tell or show us what to view, instead we decide what we hear and view.

When looking at Auslander’s theory of Liveness we can understand aspects of I-cinema. Auslander associates Liveness with ‘a sense of always being connected to other people.. a technologically mediated co-presence with others’. I found that viewing I-cinema with other people altered my experience of the entire event. When we watched images of locations in 3D with the group, it felt like a shared experience. One girl even pointed out something interesting to the rest of us. This 360 degree view means that we may view more if we have others surrounding us, as they have the opportunity to view something new while our backs are turned. At the same time, ‘Eavesdrop’, would have been more appreciated if we had the opportunity, as an individual, to choose and to listen to exactly who and what we wanted to. As this form of performance relies on the individual actions, e.g. the pointing at one particular picture to hear their dialogue louder, the experience is better appreciated if each one of us has control.

iCinema reflection - Bernice

In a short and perhaps inappropriately succinct sentence, I will now attempt to provide a point of comparison regarding Philip Auslander's theory and our experience at the iCinema venue.

The discussion that has arisen, is that in a culture where information is increasingly mediatised, it has become more difficult to define what constitutes liveness. Auslander posits that there is no difference.

At iCinema, we are able to more intensely experience a space through three-dimensional lenses and experiment with spatial reactivity through motion capture devices situated in the environs. In these terms, the space is alive for the viewer as every action encompasses a new experience. However, there is the expanding knowledge of technology's capabilities and for the viewer, it is an obvious truth that what is being seen is digital information that can be replayed.

Three kinds of narratives are articulated on the website, which I found helpful in understanding the reasons for research, and are pertinent to this discussion of liveness.

Firstly, the polychronic narrative happens in "digitally generated social spaces in which both viewers and fictional entities are allotted an anonymous voice". Secondly, the transcriptive narrative in which "viewers can dramatise freely available multi-modal forms of digital information into idiosyncratic narratives that are eventful and cinematic in character". And thirdly, the co-evolutionary mode, which is based on the "emergent narrative interaction between the behaviour of virtual actors or avatars and real viewers".

It can be concluded then, that the experience can be very varied based on the type of project that is being viewed. The extent of which the project bridges on being 'live' increases during the transcriptive model of narrative, and more strongly in the co-evolutionary mode, which term points to the development of the moving image with every response from the viewer.

During our time at iCinema, we viewed the three productions of 'Place Hampi', 'Eavesdrop' and 'There is still time… Brother' by the Wooster Group. 'Place Hampi' had a polychronic narrative that had the audience maintain a very dissociated viewing of the production. 'Eavesdrop' was transcriptive as although our presence was affective to the auditory aspects of the production, we were in no position to determine or change the plot. With 'There is still time… Brother', I struggled to get a sense of the production as we were not viewing it as a cinematic experience in which our attention is fully awarded to all sensorial aspects, but rather, we were simply viewing the moving images from a superficial observing standpoint. I found these experiences incredibly formulaic. It could have been because of the awareness that our task was to reconcile our readings with the experiential immediacy, or if I was less lenient to comment, a strong suspicion is that this 360 degree monitoring requires too much effort on the viewer's part. For me, the cinematic experience promises an all encompassing viewing in which your peripheral vision will have nothing else to latch on to, enhancing the visual obsession with the framed screen. With iCinema, many other structures can be explored with, but perhaps with the aim of promoting complete immersion, the opposite becomes unavoidable as we lose what is essential to a cinematic experience.

I will disagree with Auslander, as these productions at iCinema are certainly not 'live'. When we are aware that there was a reality prior to this screening (i.e. during the recording), certain definitions have already been cemented and a re-watching of reality, although arguably with limited attempts to affect change at the present, would always be seen as simply a digital copy.

I-cinema reflection. z3224483

Thoughts and impressions of the I-cinema;

Having never been to a 3D cinema, the I-cinema was a new experience for me. While at first I felt a bit of a strain on my eyes, I soon became used to the 3D projections and they made me feel as though I was immersed in the scenes of Hampi. Although these were still images with only one element that moved, for example the elephants, you felt as though it was a live experience in a sense, moving around the I-cinema in an attempt to see the elephants better, only to realise that the pillars and stones did in fact move with you, making it a little hard to peek around them! Ultimately though, I personally feel that the virtual experience doesn’t come close to providing justice to the real experience one would have if they actually visited these places.  Technology would have to develop further sophistication to become a parallel to the real thing ie. the smell and feel immersions of a place.

One of my favourite’s was the motion capture dance titled ‘Double District’. This virtual human-scale duet dance performance video installation made me feel engrossed, the complex lighting design allowed the dancers to be the only element on the screen with no background objects or lighting to distract and this made me feel as though I was the only one in the room.  I was mesmerized by their bodies and the way they danced, it almost appeared as if they were floating. This performance fully immersed me in the 3D virtual space and standing back further allowed me to view the 6 screens of horizontal bodies from a distance thus, fully absorb their movement. The transformation of dancers from a live stage to a virtual world in an exhibition space made me feel somehow closer to the dancers given there were no distractions and the slightly larger than life projections of the human body had the effect of grabbing my attention and allowing me to observe minutely the way the human form moved.  I feel I received a more personal experience than if I were viewing the performance live.

This performance is reflective of how advanced technology is becoming, the ability of 6 cameras to create a believable illusion of the physical space is incredible. Furthermore, the limitation of traditional live performances where the viewer is restricted to their seat is amplified by this virtual world where the viewer becomes omnipresent and can view multiple perspectives and viewpoints.  Unfortunately, I would have loved to have had the time to view the whole project.

The 360 degree screens are reflective of Philip Auslander’s theory of liveness and although the performances aren’t ontologically ‘live’, they are recreated in a mediatised environment and a new form of attention and immediacy is created in this context for audiences. New technologies like the I-cinema have remediated theatre and enhanced the way it is viewed. Auslander states “live performance now often incorporates mediatisation such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies” (Auslander, P, ‘Live performance in a mediatised culture’, 1999, pg. 21). This simply reiterates the dominance of technology in society today and the advances it has had on live performance. The 360 degree environment allows audiences to access the performance from a variety of view points, breaking down the boundaries of live theatre performance on stage where you are limited by your seat. Thus, the I-cinema put me in a different position, at the centre of the performance. 

Another clever project in the I-cinema was the ‘Journey through Sydney’. This project made me feel as though I was traveling through time and space while standing in the same position. It did have the tendency to give a feeling of vertigo and make me feel a little unsteady on my feet due to the speed and unsteadiness of the camera during recording. However, a very effective and fun piece of work that takes the viewer for a ride around Sydney in less time than it would take in real life. A live performance reserved for a virtual 3D environment.

Like many other students in the class, I would have liked an opportunity to view the entire ‘Eavesdrop’ piece. My first impression of this piece was that I couldn’t keep up but in hindsight it now becomes apparent that this is because I didn’t watch the project from start to finish and thus wasn’t able to absorb each narrative and notice the subtle connections, given the user has the ability to control and unravel the secrets embedded between each characters story. The viewer has full interactive control of the project and this makes the work a contrast to the ‘Journey through Sydney’ and ‘Double District’.  I didn’t have the same feeling of immersion as the dance project, I felt distracted and unable to keep up at several points nevertheless, it was a very clever concept recounting the last 9 minutes of several people’s lives.

All in all, the I-cinema was a ‘different’ experience for me unlike any live performance I have experienced in the sense that it presented several view points (6 horizontal angles of the dancers), 3D dimensional projections and a 360 degree environment. With more fine-tuning in regards to the other senses aside from audio and visual, this 3D cinema could be a very effective medium for experiencing virtual performances, in a live space (if that makes sense!) For example, in the ‘Journey across Sydney’ project, imagine if the viewer could stand on a platform that shook and moved according to the bends and turns the Ute took; this would simulate and help re-create the project to an even greater degree for audiences. Also, it would have been better to experience the I-cinema individually in its entirety, allowing you to become fully immersed in the projects and interact with them on a personal level.  

z3224483 Emily Newbould

iCinema reflection-Kathryn Kennett

After getting over the nauseating headache that comes with the 3D experience the iCinema was pretty interesting. Of three of these exhibits that were shown I would like to discus: Place Hampi, Wooster Project and Eavesdrop. Through the use of 3D technology iCinema performance space offers the audience both an immersion and an interaction with the virtual realities presented in the 360 degrees artworks. Although it appears from comparing the exhibits to the examples of them on the iCinema website our experience of the exhibitions differ from the original way in which they were to be received. As such our level of interactivity was limited by the large size of the class.

The first exhibit Place Hampi presented an augmented view of reality. Place Hampi presents virtual constructed 3D images of world heritage listing Vijayanagar in Hampi, southern India. The 3D image maps and preserves the sacred site that one-day may perish. Its aim is to give views a new appreciation of the ‘cultural experience…of the many layered significations of such historical, archaeological, and architectural spaces.’ (http://www.icinema.unsw.edu.au/projects/prj_hampi.html accessed 19/04/10). Certainly with the movement of the 3D images the viewer immerses themselves within the work so that one feels as if they are physically visiting the site. This incorporation of the virtually simulated Gods Auslander would say is a ‘fusion’ of the Virtual and the real. ‘We now experience such work as a fusion, not a confusion, of realms, a fusion that we see as taking place within a digital environment that incorporates live elements as part of its raw material’ (Auslander 1999; 38).

The Second exhibit I want to discuss it ‘Eavesdrop’ (2004) by David Pledger and Jeffery Shaw. Eavesdrop is an interactive installation of 5 groups of people forced to continuously repeat the last 9 minutes of their lives. This piece required more interaction from the viewer as they immerse themselves in the individual stories of the characters. In the original exhibit the viewer could negotiate the different scenes by moving towards the different characters to ‘eavesdrop.’ This would have heightened the level of interactivity with the installation. This interaction would have contributed to the ‘live’ performance of the work, whereby the installation and the audience are working together to create a co-evolutionary storyline as each ‘eavesdrop’ by the viewer contributes and alters each storyline as the 9 minutes loops. By far this was the most interesting piece as it really explored how the audience and the technology can interact whilst still conforming to a linear story.

The third exhibit the ‘Wooster Project’ by Liz LeCompte presented a dislocating experience. Due to its chaotic nature and the fact that we were sitting on the ground the piece was hard to follow. Instead the chaotic nature and heavy movement reinforced the original nauseous feeling presented by the 3D images. Auslander might say that it is my natural mediated expectations of a linear performance that has prohibited me from enjoying this piece or that perhaps the ‘liveness’ of the performance was perhaps too ‘live’. In any case the ‘Wooster Project’ for me was the least enjoyable piece.

The iCinema presents an interesting way for us to explore performance art through the augmented reality.