Re: [-empyre-] networked_performance
In response to ?involuntary interaction? or responsiveness that participants may not be aware of, what you describe brings to mind a responsive, sentient or context aware environment (also referred to as smart architecture but I like ?environment?,
or ?space? as it has a more open connotation). The work of Chris Salter and Usman Haque come to mind.
In the case of Chris Salter?s ?Suspension Threshold? the light levels of the space are raised and lowered in response to the aggregate breathing patterns of the audience, which he describes as ?an environment that lies barely on the threshold of
human perception?. Chris is also an eloquent writer and sums up a lot of compelling aspects of ubiquitous / pervasive / ambient computing from a sociotechnical or technocultural perspective.
In the case of Usman Haque, who is trained as an architect and who sites his work in architectural practice, his proposed work ?Haunt? seeks to create the parapsychological effects of the feeling of being haunted. He describes the work as ?using
humidity, temperatures and electromagnetic and sonic frequencies that parapsychologists have associated with haunted spaces to build an environment that feels "haunted".? By gauging biofeedback via galvanic skin response meters a dynamic database
modeled on learning algorithms learns what is effective in creating the sensation of feeling haunted. The adaptive system responds in real-time to the physiological state of visitors.
The project focuses on how the psychology of human perception gives rise to the construction of space. See also his project ?Scents of a Space? using scent in three-dimensional space.
Usman Haque is also an interesting to reference in that he is engaged from the perspective of an architect. This is parallel to what Helen and I propose through the blog, which is to look at the body of works on the blog from the perspective of
?performance?. We ask our selves how and why any particular work is performance and what specifically makes it performance or performative. I?ll take this up in a separate post and elaborate on the earlier question to define what we mean by
performance and will return to your proposition that what makes this body of works performances is their physical interaction.
I?m also interested for you to elaborate on your example of ?turning a work environment into an interactive space?. Also, since a number of your works are featured on the blog ? ?Hlemmur in C?, ?Autodrawn? and ?Fictional Space? - I?d like to hear
your thoughts on being included on the blog by which we propose your works are performative. Do you see these works as performances or performative? How would you understand or rationalize them as such? Though, we should be explaining our
justification to you, eh?! Hopefully, this will emerge as we endeavor to further define networked performance.
soft_skinned_space <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>I just want to briefly tell about one of the issues I've approached in
>my own work and would like to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this. I
>think the basic premise in these networked performances is physical
>interaction, i.e. not directly through the computer (that's what makes
>them "performances"). But most of them seem to involve voluntary actions
>from a certain public. I'm more interested in the idea of involuntary
>interaction. Using common actions without the participants necessarily
>being aware that they're interacting with a work of art or in a way that
>they don't have actual control over how they interact (for instance, by
>turning a work environment into an interactive space).
>I haven't really formed any deep concepts around this (besides feeling
>that this is, in a way, a very "pure" form of interaction), so I would
>be interested in hearing Helen's and others ideas on this.
michelle riel, mfa
asst. prof. new media & dept. chair
teledramatic arts & technology, bldg. 27
california state university monterey bay
100 campus center
seaside, ca 93955, usa
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and