Re: [-empyre-] interactive video as error

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Barbara Lattanzi wrote:

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"?

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.

I could respond, " 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.
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.

-- Meanwhile, I wonder what's happened to Furtherfield, as well as my own, the negbehaviour list, etc. - it's been down for a while as far as I can tell -

- Alan, thanks -

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