Signing Off

Dear people,

thanks again for all the thoughtfulness and interaction you brought to the course this session. Your presentation grades are with Lynn in the school office on level 3 Webster. For those that presented in week 11 a big apology for the scribble and please ensure that each member of the group receives the feedback. For those presenting today week 12 I have made copies of the grade template but please ensure that everyone in your group gets the handwritten feedback as well... I do translations if needed.

My very best to each of you.

Ed Scheer

Reflections on Debate 2 (WEEK 3)

TOPIC:

"Live V Mediated... Performance is a 'competitive opposition at the level of cultural economy', not at the level of intrinsic or ontological differences."

DEBATE TWO:

Affirmative Speaker 1 - ?

• Argued that many cinematic techniques of editing (eg. fade-ins/outs) were derived from theatrical techniques.
• Suggested that the big screens at concert performances bring audiences closer to the 'live' spectacles.
• Argued the two are becoming closer together, co-dependent.
• TV was an attempt to bring the experience of the theatre into the home.
• Hard to understand/no new arguments.

Negative Speaker 1 - ?

• Used the old, traditional definition of 'live' as used by Auslander.
• Argued strongly for the distinction between a TV broadcast and the physical, temporal sharing of space with the performer acting out the performance - being present in the 'now' of the performance.

Affirmative Speaker 2 - ?

• Argued for the implementation of mediatised aspects in sport - ie. dependence upon a video umpire in cricket.
• Argued that performers act out moves choreographer for music videos, mimicking other performers, etc. - this is remediation.
• Argued for 'types' of liveness, with different ways of identifying with live performances, ie. 'social' and Internet liveness, becoming (in the case of the Internet) interactive with a computer interface.
• In our modern culture, all relative definitions of liveness - time, space, intimacy - are no longer fixed, thus in today's world, live and mediatised go hand-in-hand.

Negative Speaker 2 - Laura

• Argued for two separate forms - in order for them to be dependant, they must be two things co-existing.
• Peggy Phelan - 'created space' and 'intended atmosphere' lost from mediatised performances.
• 'Sensorial' experience - onstage cooking, emotional stories and sharing the food with the audience. This creates a unique live experience. Taste and smell provoked - physical as well as emotional affect.

Affirmative Speaker 3 - ?

• Mass culture expects a more mediatised product?

Negative Speaker 3 - ?

• Performances have not been historically reliant on 'mediatisation'.
• Mediated and live are two separate things - because to have necessary mediated performance, we need to being with the life. Without the life there is not the possibility for the mediatised. The 'live' experience is a different experience than the mediatised.

CONCLUSION:

For me, the stronger team in the second debate was the Negative.

Reflections on Debate 1 (WEEK 3)

TOPIC:

"Live V Mediated... Performance is a 'competitive opposition at the level of cultural economy', not at the level of intrinsic or ontological differences."

DEBATE ONE:

Affirmative Speaker 1 - Liz

• Strong introduction outlining aims and arguments. Suggested the true live performance is 'rare' in our modern mediatised culture, allowing that viewers have become desensitised to the difference between live/recorded.
• Disappearance - the technical degradation of media, ie. videos degrading.
• Distinctions between live/recorded are historically embedded.
• Also suggested that the intimacy of live performance can be realised through the combination of live and pre-recorded media.

Negative Speaker 1 - Alice

• Good attempts to rebut Liz.
• Watching a live performance, we can choose where to look, we are not directed by the shot choices - 'live' enables individual choice of how to experience, whereas mediatised does not allow for such a choice.

Affirmative Speaker 2 - ?

• Good attempt to rebut, somewhat unconvincing.
• Argument based on ideas of interaction with new media, suggested again that live and mediated performance can be co-dependant, stemming from social and online interaction.

Negative Speaker 2 - Brent

• Strong rebuttal - remediation.
• Spoke about acting courses specifically tailored to TV, film or theatrical forms of acting.
• Immediacy and intimacy can be experienced in terms of performance with the crowd - what that shared experience brings to the piece.

Affirmative Speaker 3 - ?

• Rebutted by suggesting that mediation allows new avenues for live performances, ie. Skype.
• Supported big screens at concerts to allow viewers at back to see what's happening.
• Argued that our notions of live are shaped by our exposure to film and TV.
• Live performances have been influenced by film and TV - basically, there is a relationship of co-dependence. Both forms are mutually dependant - both remediate one another.

Negative Speaker 3 - Jan

• Argued that 'live' can exist without mediatised. The mediatised aspects of the live performance are used only to enhance the live experience.
• Short, abrupt ending (weakest speaker).

CONCLUSION:

For me, the stronger team in the first debate was the Affirmative.

i cinema

Hi,

I was just wondering where are the marks for our i cinema reviews.

Tanya Moore