RE: [-empyre-] networked_performance 2

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> The New York Times review of this piece includes the following description
> of the result: "As people flicked their lights in swirling, jabbing and
> jittery patterns, the musicians played riffs, chords, sustained tones,
> honks, squiggles and whatnot?The problem was, the light show was
> infinitely
> more interesting than the music. Still, the audience seemed elated by the
> experience."
>
> And this, I believe is the point -- not a predetermined composition
> perfectly played for a listening audience, but an experience for those
> participating, which in this case, as the reviewer acknowledged, delighted
> the participants.
>
> -- Helen

I have read you on one other occassion where you pointed out the importance
of "experience" to some particular works. It was salient, given the nature
of the interactive works you were commenting on at the time. The context is
similar, above, in that the work you refer to is interactive.

And you're getting at something that many seem to miss, concerning
interactive work. You and the reviewer distinguish between a perspective
outside the interaction and a perspective from within the interaction, ie, a
perspective of observation and a perspective of experience. It seems quite a
bit of the 'meaning' is carried through the experience, in the above sort of
work.

Creating works that are dynamically responsive/performative may then be a
bit like the difference between a fixed sculpture and a reactive person. The
sculpture is often more beautiful and, as object of contemplation, reads
quite different from contemplating a person. And, again, we do less
contemplation of people than experience of them (for better or worse).

ja