Re: [-empyre-] live performance vs. studio/other

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@rhizome.org>]

> I see that as presenting the
> audience with an anchor to keep them engaged in what's going on, to ease
> their level of comfort. In a sense, the visuals metaphorically become the
> blank wall that is stared at during zen meditation, if we're to take that
> as a model for concentration -- but by using a set of images rather than
> one static image, it is easier for the audience to remain attentive; it's a
> bit much to ask that the audience remain silent and mindful of the sound
> without a visual focal point, especially if they aren't used to that type
> of deep listening situation.

Since when did art become TV?

Why do we pamper?


Two tactics:

1. Pamper. Ie, seduction to the image draws them into something else,
thereby rendering the image superficial in the final analysis, a simple bit
of eye candy to avoid "unnecessary distractions," thereby devaluing the
image in the end reflection as a simple means to an end.

2. Engage in art, fuck "the audience."

Which doesn't necessarily mean confrontational tactics, but perhaps it also
means we are thinking too much like marketeers, PR salesmen & magic lantern
enthusiasts -- it's a trap I find myself brushing against all the time.


tobias

ps. Provocate! Devil's Advocate!

pps. I enjoy sonic-image continuities & discontinuities:

http://www.quadrantcrossing.org/trace
[ hopefully Trace won't mind, this is a sneak peak @ a work for A:D:A:P:T
RE:BUILD - http://www.du.edu/~treddell/adapt/ ]