Re: [-empyre-] networked_performance 2
Helen and Michelle
I wish to say your proposions are so many intense questions, that it is barely
"answerable". Thre are many good points here like the idea of categorizing
without locking a frame for the crossing manifestations of performance.
I think that most of your questions can be answered with yes, it does, or will
do. On the other hand it is necessary to think that telematic performance or
networked - in general - is subject to criticism from the people who do
"traditional" performance for they argument one of the main traces of
performance is its liveness. It has to do with presence and would not have to
do with absence that signifies remote presence.
I do not agree with that, on the contrary. But arguments for Telepresence as a
kind of presence must have place. (I am not saying you did not mention that).
I am taking a copy of your post (it made 4 pages of Word btw) to show it to my
students for we are now in a struggle, in Brazil, to develop a more connected
Oh, pardon me: only now I noticed I forgot to present myself and the reasons I
am posting here:
My name is Lucio Agra and I am one of the members of the crew of professors to
the Undergraduate course of Performance at the Faculty of Communication and
Body Arts at the Catholic University of Sao Paulo. The course was pioneered by
two colleagues, Carlos Gardin (Theatre) and Christine Greiner (Dance) who,
seven years ago, constructed this project. We delivered the third group of
Bachelors last year and we are going to the fourth. The project for the
performance section of the course was made by Renato Cohen, the most important
brazilian specialist in the field, unfortunately disappeared in 2003.
Expecting to continue his work, we are now dealing with one of his last
interests, which happens to be telematic performance, exactly.
Sao Paulo Brazil
Citando Helen Thorington <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Hello again.
> Surveying the blog we identify four areas of networked performance practice
> which current work explores in various combinations. We have categorized
> these as (1) telematic events, (2) locative media, (3) wearables, and (4)
> active objects and responsive environments.
> Telematics connect people to people or people to objects through a network,
> such as telerobotics or haptics; locative media provide location aware
> engagement; smart environments enable architecture and objects to respond to
> environmental changes of state generated by occupants/inhabitants; and
> wearables extend the body's senses through technological prosthesis.
> We see lots of overlap and combinations in the works we survey, so these are
> not to be considered rigid categories but an effort at broad representation.
> We¹re keenly interested in the commonalties across emergent art/technology
> practice with attention to artist/audience/object/environment,
> performativity and the open work.
> 1. TELEMATIC EVENTS
> To date this has been the most prolific, comprehensible/understandable area
> of practice, encompassing the exploration of networked performance by the
> traditional performing arts where new technologies are integrated into
> existing forms (dance, music, theater). Examples of this would include the
> musical performance. InteraXis with Jesse Gilbert, Mark Trayle and Wadada
> Leo Smith and dance performances such as those created by AdaPT, an
> interdisciplinary association of artists, technologists and scholars.
> Others move us onto new terrain. Jeff Mann and Michelle Teran, for instance,
> create performance events that explore new ways for computers to support
> social experiences in the physical environment. Their objective is not
> performance for an audience but creating a shared experience in which
> everyday social spaces become ³electronically activated play environments,
> capable of transmitting the physical presence and social gestures that
> comprise?human interaction² across time and distance. No longer dependent on
> the work-based screen and keyboard, in these environments ordinary goods and
> wares furniture, cutlery etc. ³come to life as both kinetic art and
> telecommunications interfaces².
> 2. LOCATIVE MEDIA
> Locative media practice has exploded since the public availability of GPS
> and its consequent inexpensive and ubiquitous availability in mobile
> electronic devices. Some of this practice makes urban areas into game boards
> and city infrastructures into play spaces. Blast Theory, a London-based
> group, is renowned internationally for their contribution to this genre with
> works that make a public space ?playable¹ by participants in the street and
> Others create ³geo-annotation projects.² This involves assigning geo-spatial
> coordinates to media content so that it can be accessed at a specific
> geographical location with an enabled device. While the ³true² location of
> the content is a database, by making it possible to access that content from
> a particular location, its place (so to speak) migrates into the physical
> environment, making urban streets and the landscape ³programmable.² Urban
> Tapestries and the Aware Platform are examples of this. Both are
> location-based wireless platforms that allow users to access, author and
> share location-specific content (text, audio, pictures, and/or movies) But
> there are many more: Yellow Arrow, Grafedia, MapHub, and, as Anne Galloway
> says, ³ and oh, about a million others now.²
> There are also projects specifically designed to enable communication and
> shape transient networked communities. Yuri Gitman¹s Magicbike turns common
> bicycles into WiFi hotspots that broadcast free WiFi connectivity to their
> proximity. And Jonah Brucker-Cohen and Katherine Moriwaki¹s UMBRELLA.net
> develops ad-hoc networks based around the haphazard and unpredictable
> patterns of weather and crowd formation. The system consists of a set of
> umbrellas as nodes that can spontaneously form a network when unfurled.
> 3. WEARABLES
> Wearable computing enlarges the use of computers to include wearing them on
> ones body?much as eyeglasses or clothing are worn?and facilitates
> interaction with the user, and between users, based on specific situations.
> Fionnuala Conway and Katherine Moriwaki¹s Urban Chameleon, for instance, is
> comprised of three skirts: 1) ³Touch² changes visual properties upon
> contact; 2) ³Speak² reacts to urban noise; and 3) ³Breathe² visualizes
> pollution and urban exhaust as it travels through the garment.
> Tina Gonsalves¹ Medulla Intimata is responsive video jewelry. The overall
> function of the piece and its video content is to reflect the full character
> and content of the wearer¹s emotions and thus present a fuller living
> portrait: the wearer as he/she is in unmediated interaction and the wearer
> as he /she feels at that moment.
> 4. ACTIVE OBJECTS AND RESPONSIVE ENVIRONMENTS
> Increasingly, through ubiquitous/pervasive/ambient computing paradigms and
> wireless sensing, artifacts, objects and physical space itself are being
> charged with properties traditionally associated with living bodies.
> In their recent Benches and Bins, Greyworld creates furniture that is able
> to roam freely through the new public square in Cambridge, England and
> respond to its surroundings and ambient movement.
> While Chris Salter, in the environment-inhabitant interaction
> Suspension/Threshold, focuses on the theme of thresholds or bardo (in
> between) states, and creates a body responsive environment where the
> aggregate breathing patterns of the collective audience/participants lighten
> an otherwise dark environment.
> Much of this work is conceived to provoke interaction between people, and
> between people and their spaces. More than not it encourages people to be
> performers within the work and thus to enable or realize the work. This
> calls into question the accepted nature of performance and introduces a
> shifting relationship between the artist, artwork and audience.
> We locate this practice within an historical continuum (Kaprow¹s
> ³Happenings,² Galloway¹s ³Electronic Café,² ³Experimental Art and Technology
> (EAT),² the Situationists, Fluxus, etc.) and suggest that this trajectory is
> redefining the performative as a socially networked, collaborative model for
> artistic and cultural practice.
> The overarching question, then. is:
> ³How do we understand performance in relation to these new activities that
> are between the existing and the developing, and what can we learn by
> stretching our understanding of performance in light of these perspectives²?
> Other questions we are interested in include:
> 1. How is performance changing in response to networked computing
> technologies (mobile, satellite/GPS, internet)?
> 2. What is the relationship of 'real-time' computing to liveness and
> 3. What is the relationship of agency and authorship to performativity? Is
> performativity synonymous with being an actor, agent, or author? Is
> ³performer² another label for the user/viewer/visitor/ of an interactive
> 4. As the use of the network becomes more social, adopting the peer-to-peer
> model, what does this imply for performance and net.art as performative?
> 5. How are network processes (algorithmic, procedural rule-based systems,
> generative) influencing or being investigated by performance?
> 6. How are networked concepts as modes of communication (granularity, open
> source, emergent behavior, affordance, latency, ubiquitous computing)
> impacting performance?
> -- Helen and Michelle
> empyre forum
Que tal uma lupa para entender as ofertas que a concorrência faz para ligações
DDD/DDI e acesso à Internet?
Use a lupa da Embratel e descubra! www.falaserio21.com.br
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and