Re: [-empyre-] interactive video as error

I don't see why performativity and/or intentionality depends on error, or how error is equivalent to misrecognition or mismatch. Performativity as I understand it references statements that themselves are actants, as in taking an oath or possibility interjections. It also references _any computer command, from clicking a link to typing and hitting return on 'date' in a terminal window. Likewise interactive video is a discursive field with perhaps live performance near one 'node' and the standard network newscast near another. There are any number of possibilities. As pointed out, even live audience participation is a form of performativity for more than the performer/creator his/her self. It's always a wager.

Re: Virtual - I'm nervous about posting here, but I think there are issues relatively important at stake. I find the concept of tremendous use, and can point to for example Merlin Donald's work on external mind as a good example. One can deconstruct constantly, but there's a basic (not essen- tial) difference between an equivalent avatar in Poser and being-in-the- world a la say Merleau-Ponty or Alfred Schutz. The difference however isn't technologically-based; Tibetan 'ghost traps' or kami-residentces in Shinto Shrines also embody the virtual. It's the liminal that's fascina- ting here - something that Talan Memmott has worked on extensively - the distance between screen and participant - a skein of projectivity / introjectivity (since there are other loops as well I use the term 'jectivity' to reference this entanglement), that works within an uncanny among real/virtual/physical-material/representation and so forth. Most of my own work's in this area; I certainly see Talan's as well here.

It's very unclear to me that the Furtherfield Studio is 'closed.' It's 'closed' the way any venue is, even the Agora. But anyone may enter and participate, and when I've been in/on/within it, it's been full of surprises - just like IRC, newgroups, etc., all equally open and closed.

- Alan

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Barbara Lattanzi wrote:

I have used the hiatus in my participation in this discussion to absorb the insights of Komininos, Adrian, James, Simon, Ed, Jim, Alan and others. Thanks for numerous valuable insights and references... e.g., Michael Polyani, whose work I was completely unfamiliar with.

Also, there were detailed discussions of actual interactive net projects by Marc Garrett and Chris/babel.

I am interested in the fact that the conversation about specific works spun into a discussion of the virtual.

Is this side-stepping intentionality? What about performance in interactive video for the web?

For example, the performativity of users is foregrounded in Furtherfield's Visitors Studio. As I interpret Marc's words, the purposes of interactive video on the web - as experienced at Furtherfield - is activist:

"It is not only the people that invent/make the platform and sculpt it, it is the community that changes its manner and shape as well, in demanding that it changes for their own creative needs." -- quoted from Marc's post on march 7th.

I take this to mean that a group of people sees itself taking shape around a more or less stable pattern of possibilities, grounded in a dynamic process rather than in a group identity. The benefit of this collaborative intentional process is the ability of the group to morph itself over time....

...that is, as long as the group remains within the closed environment of the Visitor Studio.

So, I would not necessarily call this "community-building" because of the closed system. Yet Marc invokes community as integral to the Visitors Studio.

How does the public-space dimension of the web shift the performativity of the viewer? Is it only between these 2 alternatives:

Alternative 1. -- "reflective" interactivity (Nicolas Clauss' collaborative works, including "Pianographique", being a powerful example)

Alternative 2. -- collaborative interactivity, where a community is presumed and integral (as in Furtherfield)

In contrast to these, "C-SPAN Karaoke", and downloadable interactive video software such as "HF Critical Mass", depend on a pre-existing group that is familiar with several overlapping conversations/discourses. "CSPAN Karoake" and "HF Critical Mass" are performative, just as dependent upon social context as the Visitor Studio at Furtherfield, yet share neither the desire to do community-building nor the alternative attention to "reflective" modes of interactivity.

Performativity (and intentionality) depends on error.. e.g., it is "wrong" to sing pop tunes as accompaniment to public-policy videos (as in cspan karaoke); or it is "wrong" to open-source an aesthetic that is by-definition open source as soon as it is embodied in a work of art such as Hollis Frampton's film "Critical Mass" (as in the interactive video software "HF Critical Mass"). The performance is in the error, the discursive mismatch.

The pursuit-of-error as performance of intentionality - this is what will be "interactive" about anything technologically-characterised as interactive video on the web.


_______________________________________________ empyre forum

nettext WVU 2004 projects: Trace projects

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.