Pall, in my prior post, I commented that the "freeway performs" and have previously said of this work that the computer performs and can see it as both. The computer can also be seen as a tool, as you note, doing the computational work and
"automating experimentation".
However, I attribute a broader context. Although each driver contributes to the work and is a performer, though unknowingly, I extrapolate the drivers into a singular - the performance of the freeway - as an event, location, context and experience.
For example, at some hypothetical time when there are no cars, the computer will still draw the state of the freeway at that time. When there are no drivers, who are the performers? (As experimental theatre director Richard Foreman proposed - and I
paraphrase - a ball rolls across an empty stage and there is no audience to see it happen yet it is still a performance.) Although it's possible that the camera won't transmit an image if there's no movement it seems that the computer still performs
the act of drawing. And, if as you note, it will draw when there is no camera signal, then the computer, under certain conditions becomes the sole performer in the work which could encompass the computer, the freeway and each of the drivers as
performers.
The simultaneity or multiplicity this proposes is a defining feature common to much of the work on the blog. The familiar dichotomy between performer/audience is now shifting and expanding to receivers of the work being both audience and performers
(and content creators). Although this doesn’t specifically apply to your work with regard to the receiver participating beyond observing. I’m always interested to hear an artist's intention in their work as often my own reception is related but oft
not an exact comprehension, so it adds an additional layer of meaning to understand the artists intentions along with my interpretation. But what I find interesting here - in that you, me and Helen have somewhat different takes on “the performer” in
Autodrawn - is that the door has been opened to interpretation of performer/performance and it speaks of our negotiations with computation in a performative system and the interest to (re)define the human relationship and role within such a system.
For me, this thread points to a systems based consideration of performance. In the context of the machinic phylum (Deleuze and Guattari) we can begin to consider humans in a flat hierarchy with machines as a component in a sequence of elements in a
system comprised of feedback loops that receive and pass data, Chris’ earlier conception of the human-machine entanglement. This indicates a willingness to explore human’s shifting relationship within machinic systems, as opposed to a defacto human
primacy. I feel it’s really important that we have these conversations so that we can understand the changing relationships we are creating between humans and thinking/acting machines which we increasingly not only imbue but equip with learning,
sentience, consciousness and other performative attributes considered the domain of the human.
You had previously commented on your interest to capture behavior unawares so that people didn’t change their actions in an attempt to manipulate the interactive aspect, as when you discuss capturing the performance of everyday life. This raises the
question of awareness or as Helen notes, consciousness. What it also brings up that we haven't specifically addressed yet is the idea of framing reception or context, an aspect that has to be considered in the definition of performance.
These questions are not necessarily addressed to you, but are the tangents that are sparked by your reply.
cheers -
Michelle
soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> writes: