Re: [-empyre-] interactive video as error
At 04:13 PM 3/14/2005, you wrote:
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.
Please excuse, then, my error. Since I had every intention of my statement
either that, or else I had the intention of finally finding (performing)
some position that someone else in this discussion could address.
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.
a serious question... a wager of what? that the audience will perform
badly? what is the criteria for such a characterisation if "there are any
number of possibilities"?
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,
I could respond, "...as I do, the concept of error", since I make them so
often that I feel close to the concept as a lived idea.
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
yes, I so much agree... and I appreciate how generous you are in the
variety of references that you are using to make your point.
- 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.'
I am thinking of TAZ. And how that kind of cloistering space does not
depend on reference to its outside (which is nonetheless part of it, e.g.,
the software and other contextual aspects of its apparatus), is filled with
productive ambiguities and, just like you say, with surprises.
I have nothing against the Furtherfiled studio! It is remarkable! I am
just trying to characterise an alternate route for thinking about
interactive video that reckons with the audience in a way that "provokes"
an exchange of values.
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.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and