Re: [-empyre-] networked_performance 2

[Helen Thorington <newradio@turbulence.org>]

Helen: There have been some interesting experiments done by musicians and
composers. In ³interaXis² (2001, 2002), for instance, Jesse Gilbert with
Mark Trayle and Wadada Leo Smith addressed the challenge of the multiple
times and dislocations introduced with networked technologies.

The problem, as Gilbert said,  was that often the sounds coming from remote
locations were/are indistinguishable from the contributions of on-site
performers, creating an ambiguous space that confuses rather than elucidates
the interaction between the dispersed ensemble.

In each of the two ³interaXis² performing spaces, Los Angeles and New York,
the live performers were in static positions while  the remote performers
were presented through a spatializing system,  thus creating a perceptual
distinction between the two halves of the ensemble and an aural analog for
the streaming process, symbolizing the movement of the audio stream between
the sites.

There was more to it than that, of course, and they are not the only ones
experimenting. In fact, there are  so many experiments being done with more
musical works that I often wish there could be one place where information
on them could be exchanged..

interaXis of course is an experiment with sound.

The Mann-Teran approach -- telematic objects -- see my earlier post -- is
another way.  Michelle Teran has promised to post soon and I'm hoping she
will write about this (liveness/presence) and how their work deals with
dispersed interaction.


- Helen 

                 




on 7/7/05 12:18 AM, Helen Varley Jamieson at helen@creative-catalyst.com
wrote:

> it's something lots of proximal performances don't manage to capture
> either ; ) presence - the holy grail of theatre ... how to create it
> when you're not even in the same hemisphere as your audience? i know
> that we've achieved it - sometimes - but i don't profess to know the
> magic formula.
> 
> one thing we've learned is to make it clear that it's live, so the
> audience knows they are occupying the same time-space as the
> performers. interaction, response, typos, lag, glitches, technical
> hitches, mistakes - all of these contribute to the liveness. live
> work is so much more risky than prerecorded, but if it's
> indistinguishable from prerecorded, then it can lose that energy.
> 
> interaction is something that people expect & hunger for in the
> online world, unlike theatre audiences who often shrink from
> "audience participation". we've found that when we create a role for
> the audience, they grab it & run with it. they don't even define
> themselves as audience, they perceive themselves as an integral part
> of the performance. the presence is definitely there in those
> situations. the work is not complete until the audience enters into
> it.
> 
> (another) helen : )
> 
>> lucio, helen, michelle, greetings
>> i would like to ask, in relation to liveness, the role of the audience in
>> adding to a live performance.
>> how does one capture that energy that builds through a performance, in the
>> exchanges between performer and audience, that ultimately impact on the
>> performer and performance?
>> that energy is something that even a video recording doesn't actually
>> capture, that presence in the atmosphere around you of a certain something,
>> non-physical but present, that you feel moving back and forth from audience
>> to performer.
>> 
>> komninos
>> 
>> komninos zervos
>> http://www.gu.edu.au/ppages/k_zervos
>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/mangolegs
>> http://spokenword.blog-city.com
>> "Our Workplace Rights are NOT for sale."
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>