Re: [-empyre-] interactive video as error
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Barbara Lattanzi wrote:
I should have said 'a risk' but I wanted to emphasize the negotiation that
occurs between an audience and an artist. It's a continuous negotiation.
In Boston I once showed a tape I felt was a 'failure' and wanted to
discuss that - the audience was furious. It's this edge of dis/comfort
that often drives live work - one reason I admire standup comedy so much.
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
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.Have you looked at Winograd and Flores' - Understanding Computers and
Cognition? A theory of error is developed there - as well as a relation-
ship with Heidegger. Really to the point. With my own work I try to push
into the 'interstices' of software like Poser - it's the edge between
breakdown and function where the 'matrix' or 'codework' is revealed.
-- Meanwhile, I wonder what's happened to Furtherfield, as well as my own
www.asondheim.org, the negbehaviour list, etc. - it's been down for a
while as far as I can tell -
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
- Alan, thanks -
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and