Alan,
At 04:13 PM 3/14/2005, you wrote:
I don't see why performativity and/or intentionality depends on
error, or how error is equivalent to misrecognition or mismatch.
Performativity as I understand it references statements that
themselves are actants, as in taking an oath or possibility
interjections.
Please excuse, then, my error. Since I had every intention of my
statement being correct...
either that, or else I had the intention of finally finding
(performing) some position that someone else in this discussion could
address.
It also references _any computer command, from clicking a link to
typing and hitting return on 'date' in a terminal window.
Likewise interactive video is a discursive field with perhaps live
performance near one 'node' and the standard network newscast near
another.
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"?
Re: Virtual - I'm nervous about posting here,
but I think there are issues relatively important at stake. I find
the concept of tremendous use,
I could respond, "...as I do, the concept of error", since I make them
so often that I feel close to the concept as a lived idea.
and can point to for example Merlin Donald's work on external mind as
a good example. One can deconstruct constantly, but there's a basic
(not essen- tial) difference between an equivalent avatar in Poser
and being-in-the- world a la say Merleau-Ponty or Alfred Schutz. The
difference however isn't technologically-based; Tibetan 'ghost traps'
or kami-residentces in Shinto Shrines also embody the virtual. It's
the liminal that's fascina- ting here
yes, I so much agree... and I appreciate how generous you are in the
variety of references that you are using to make your point.
- something that Talan Memmott has worked on extensively - the
distance between screen and participant - a skein of projectivity /
introjectivity (since there are other loops as well I use the term
'jectivity' to reference this entanglement), that works within an
uncanny among real/virtual/physical-material/representation and so
forth. Most of my own work's in this area; I certainly see Talan's as
well here.
It's very unclear to me that the Furtherfield Studio is 'closed.'
I am thinking of TAZ. And how that kind of cloistering space does not
depend on reference to its outside (which is nonetheless part of it,
e.g., the software and other contextual aspects of its apparatus), is
filled with 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.
Barbara
It's 'closed' the way any venue is, even the Agora. But anyone may
enter and participate, and when I've been in/on/within it, it's been
full of surprises - just like IRC, newgroups, etc., all equally open
and closed.
- Alan
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre