VJam
Theory |
|
|
Content |
Date published: 09/09/07 Collaborative writers |
Quotes to get us StartedBROADCAST, MEDIA, INTERACTIVE, MCLUHAN, ROKEBYQuotes from "Transforming Mirrors", a text by Canadian artist David Rokeby (emphasis mine): "Itsuo Sakane, the Japanese journalist and curator, suggests that interactive art is simply art that involves the participation of the viewer. However, he goes on to remark, "all arts can be called interactive in a deep sense if we consider viewing and interpreting a work of art as a kind of participation." An echo of Marcel Duchamp's famous declaration: "The spectator makes the picture." "McLuhan often referred to technologies as 'extensions of man'. But in fully interactive technologies, the flow of information goes both ways; the apparati become more like permeable membranes." "Television expands the reach of our vision, while at the same time, filtering the content. We trade the subjectivity of our personal point of view for centrally collected and broadcasted images and information. Interactive media has the power to likewise expand the reach of our actions and decisions. We trade subjectivity for participation and the illusion of control; our control may appear absolute, but the domain of that control is externally defined. We are engaged, but exercise no power over the filtering language of interaction embedded in the interface. Rather than broadcasting content, interactive media has the power to broadcast modes of perception and action." From this text, some questions arise for me: Full Paper available from: http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/mirrors.html |
I should like very much to read Sakane’s statement of the interactive, echoing a truism, not only Duchamp but much older traditions. The present surge of art in occidental culture, aside from expressing a basic need (excluding the crass commercialism) of human existence, seems to me a natural reaction to the centuries old artificial separation of art and ritual from everyday life. As for the quote relating to McLuhan: In which ways are the information flows of fully interactive technologies reciprocal? I think that VJs and all artists can cultivate that permeable membrane by first penetrating that impermeable membrane of the cerebral cortex, and the labelling part of brain. The ancient metaphors of narcissus and echo are appropriate in this context and the spectator does indeed make part of the picture. Seer-seen-seeing, all parts of the equation, of necessity must be taken into account, at least for any kind of evolution to happen and most certainly for real interaction of any type, especially live dynamic creation. In transforming mirrors, Rokeby often refers to Duchamp and the bride stripped bare. This work is above all a work of refraction not reflection and indeed is among so many things, a criticism of the false mirror image in which one point perspective (generated in western art) is vain and self absorbed like narcissus giving soley an inference of reflection, never a real one. One of the hardest things to really crystallize in words is that membrane between performing and the audience. There is at peak times a circuit, a conduit and it is something very powerful and almost some form of non verbal communication of the deepest kind. It is purely emotional, immediate, exhilarating, with far fewer barriers. As Athena mentioned, we carry in our labelling, indexing and contextualising brains the shifts in the crowd's connection, mood, collective, near collective moments or periods of a unified feeling. These are palpable while performing (for better or worse depending on how it shifts in or out), it is as though information and communication in depth has been looped from performer to audience and back again. Some performers lose the organic simplicity of this conduit's formation and become narcissus on stage, lost in not just his reflection, but exaggerated and rehearsed gestures, unnecessary (and sometimes not even plugged in or in volume range..) dramatic knob twirls, posturing as though it bleeds portent while the music and VJing is really where this comes from: in the man machine, cybernetics, what Kraftwerk so understood 30 years ago and not as we musicians call "lead guitarist disease" (the urge to be all flash and technique to wow the crowd...not flow with the music ). You could almost say that the true peaks in performer to audience interaction or playing intuitively another instrument, and playing it well, the instrument being that space in the air between the VJ and the audience and in tiny increments of time. Those few feet and milliseconds in which to feel, intuit, react and collaborate. I think the problem with modelling a definition of interaction based on perception alone is exactly that everything becomes interactive. In my opinion the user/viewer/participant's perception is important, however the Sakane/Duchamp quote seems to refer more to INTERPRETATION not INTERACTION. I am leaning toward a definition of interaction that includes both function AND perception. Scholars, such as Bucy- http://organicode.net/Bucy04.pdf, also argue that interaction should be used to describe a mediated environment and I tend to agree with this notion. |
Interactive IdeologyAUTHORSHIP, DEMIURGE, INTERACTIVITY, THEORY[These are simply some notes prompted by David Rokeby's piece.] It has become a commonplace assumption that when something is interactive, it is not only more democratic, but is also "open" as part of a general "questioning of authorship". Both these interpretations of interactivity may be not only inaccurate, but specifically misleading, providing a mask for the re-assertion of traditional modes of working while creating an illusion of the opposite. Rokeby writes "The question of domination raises an important issue". For many people, interaction has come to mean 'control'. People look to interactive technology for 'empowerment', and such technologies can certainly give the interactor a strong sense of power. This is clearly the attraction of video games. In these games, the mirror transforms the interactor's gestures largely by amplification, but what is actually offered is the amplification of a gesture within a void, a domination of nothingness, the illusion of power. In particular, this is a fantasy of power bereft of responsibility. In the recent Gulf War, the video-game fantasy of power was reconnected to the power of actual armaments. In the process, the sense of responsibility was lost; the personal accountability of the pilots was cleverly amputated, dissolved by the interface. "Interaction is about encounter rather than control. The interactive artist must counter the video-game-induced expectations that the interactor often brings to interaction. Obliqueness and irony within the transformations and the coexistence of many different variables of control within the interactive media provide for a richer, though perhaps less ego-gratifying experience." [1] It is unclear how the set of concerns with ironically divesting his audience of the sense of "control" can be seen as other than an assertion of control by forces extrinsic to the audience, in this case, the author via an automated system. Expecting his audience to accept this passively is basically taking an authoritarian stance. |
I agree about the misleading way in which interactivity has been presented to the public for so many years now. It has been an entirely demagogic promise of a democratisation of the artistic work, and an illusory disappearance of the author. At best, it has been an unreflexive impulse to offer "new, shiny toys with exciting modes of operation" to the bored art audience. Interactivity, presented in this way, is related to the false, capitalist assumption that freedom lies in the "freedom of choice". Here is a quote from Sloterdijk [Regulations for the Human Park], which might be useful: "...more and more, people end up in the subjective part of selection by mere coincidence, even without having struggled intentionally to reach the role of selectors ... there is uneasiness in freedom of choice, and it may soon be conceivable that people will explicitly refuse to exercise this freedom, even after fighting for it". Why would I, a member of the public, want to dance like a fool in front of your reactive screen?? (my translation from the Spanish edition. I would like to present another way of looking at "interactivity" or audience participation. My partner and I perform at what is becoming most often referred to as "live cinema" in which we improvise sound and image on laptops and other electronics, much like a DJ & VJ, but meant for a sit-down audience. We are called Potter-Belmar Labs. Since our recent relocation to Texas from Ann Arbor, MI (with its deep history of experimental cinema, especially via the Ann Arbor Film Festival) we have developed a way to help our audience understand better what we do. We request that they write "inter-titles" to help guide the performance along. Cards are passed out as they come into the venue, written on, and collected. A video is played for their entertainment as we take the suggestions in the back, arrange them into some narrative arc, and quickly digitise and load them into the computer for projection along with the other visuals during the set. We have a skeletal system to improvise from, provided by members of the audience. Their engagement becomes something other than passive, as they watch for their intertitle and engage with our interpretation of it. Quite correct! Incredibly misleading, and how convenient for some, the disappearing author! Just think how lovely it will be to pocket all those royalties! As for democracy, a short muse about the realities of choice and voting: One can only vote for whom will hopefully make YOUR choice. one cannot vote for the basic agendas of any so called democratic society. In particular the economic agendas. Interactivity: To act upon participatory; to have a SHARE in -yes why should i dance like a fool in front of your screen? Well put cubo.. lets take an historical metaphor: Why should i dance in front of YOUR enemies cannons ?
|
VJing as anti-narrativeBRUNER, BURKE, INTERACTIVITY, NARRATIVE, PERFORMANCEI believe that the work of a VJ can be characterised as being an anti-narrative, which can potentially generate a "meta" level of interpretation. This "meta" level becomes a narration about the VJ, and of what she is doing in the context of her own images. Let me explain: 1. A means for emphasising actions performed by agents to achieve goals. 2. A sequential order that must be established and maintained. Events and states should be linearised in a standard way. 3. A sensitivity to what is canonical, and what violates canonicality in human interaction. 4. A narrator's voice or perspective. VJing escapes from all of these four conditions. In a performance, the VJs actions become meaningless under the absence of a goal. The images on the screen appear as a sequence to the audience, thus blurring the line between linearity and non-linearity. True non-linearity is not achievable by human perception: we can not experience more than one sensory environment at a time. Yet, the performer generates sequences of images which can potentially be ordered in many different ways, so the idea of a narrative order becomes useless. This absence of a normalized development through time, along with the meaninglessness of action, have the effect of vanquishing the narrator's voice. In fact, it is quite possible for the VJ to perform without appearing in front of the public, and even without any intention to engage in active communication with the audience. Indeed, this is what most VJs do. Finally, if we understand human interaction as a form of communication and encounter, we can say that the non-communicative nature of VJing breaks, either consciously or unconsciously, the canonical relations between performer and audience. 1. The act. 2. The scene. 3. The agent. 4. The agency. 5. The Purpose. My conclusion is that the audience plays an active part in VJing, but in a level which transcends the contents that are being played. I believe that the audience constructs a story about the act of VJing, within a context provided by the content. The audiovisual objects become a mere scenario. But, of course, the audience is always free to just feel the images and drift away... [1] Jerome Bruner, "Acts of Meaning". Harvard
University Press, 1990 |
In response to paragraph 2: Rather it makes grammar more flexible which is the sign of a healthy language. In response to paragraph 3 & 4: His interpretation is only true if one removes the ECONOMIC BASE OF VJING which unfortunately is considerable, and true non -linearity is QUITE perceivable by human perception. We can perceive many sensory environments simultaneously and the fact that we have survived, nay flourished in spite of the stupidity of our sensory interpretation throughout the ages is a verification of that. Furthermore, though the performer generates semi-random sequences, this in no way implies meaningless-ness. In true participatory cultures, so called normalised time only exists in terms of relativity, thereby emphasising the obvious fact that the narrators "voice" is in both narrator and narratee and is one and the same. It is true that VJs can indeed perform without appearance or intention of communication, but is this desirable or even remotely of interest? Didn‘t Mussolini, Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill already do that? Quite more effectively one might add! Bruners theory i find works quite well in reverse, we do understand things via narrative, this is primarily because of incessant brainwashing. One pertinent point however: It is wrong that we use narrative to create fiction, rather we use fiction to justify the narratives we incessantly create.
|
Models and FrameworksINTERACTIVITY, PARTICIPATION, THEORYNarrative and Anti-narrative; linear and non-linear; author and audience. All these dualities seem to clearly define positions in advance of our consideration, and the questions these positions all appear to raise about audience and artwork and interaction have already been asked and various answers have been found. All of which are readily available as the "common knowledge" of so many of our collective assumptions about media and how media do/should act. The underlying problem we have is that these models and the questions they generate are all already old, heavily discussed and well-known. There is little challenge made to the idea that "aura" is diminished by "reproduction." It is an established fact, to question it is to suggest a heresy. That this situation obtains means, that these models are thoroughly academic in nature, and the history they support (or supports them) is no longer open to question. Simply put, then, is the problem: We need new models that are independent of these assumptions, and specifically question the established frameworks themselves, rejecting them were appropriate. |
Do you really think that what we do (VJing, Digital art, you name it) is so entirely different from all previous artistic manifestations (audiovisual or not), that we need to completely reject what has been said and done? Many things have been said before, but they are not closed truths; they are rather ongoing conversations. These quotes are from an article by J.M. Coetzee about Walter Benjamin's "Arcades" project, and I believe that what was at stake then is still at stake now: "'I need not say anything. Merely show,' says Benjamin; and elsewhere: 'Ideas are to objects as constellations are to stars.' If the mosaic of quotations is built up correctly, a pattern should emerge, a pattern that is more than the sum of its parts but cannot exist independently of them". Coetzee goes on, relating Adorno's reactions to this form of fragmented writing: "What dismayed Adorno about the project in 1935 was Benjamin's faith that a mere assemblage of objects (in this case, decontextualised quotations) could speak for itself." and then, Benjamin tries to argue in favour of his project: "The objects and figures that inhabit the arcades - gamblers, whores, mirrors, dust, wax figures, mechanical dolls - are emblems, and their interactions generate meanings, allegorical meanings that do not need the intrusion of theory." ...couldn't we continue from where they left off this conversation (of course, it has been picked up by many before us), and try to think about these ideas in our own, contemporary terms? For example, do the images played by the VJ interact in a way that eliminates the need for narrative? The nature of this problem is that these conversations, as you call them, do not apply now. It isn't that the digital realm is necessarily different than other media, but that the context has shifted to incorporate the previous criticisms into the current status quo, thus making any repeat of previous questions already a sign of co-option and assimilation to the status quo. Thus the problem is that the established set of criticisms, Benjamin prominently among them, are no longer critical, merely sock puppets for what was once critical over 70 years ago. No other field except the "arts" would willingly accept the proposition that what was established as "true" that long ago can still be unquestionably applied and accepted today. The situation has changed, but the critical-theoretical accounts remain stuck in the past. This is a major problem when confronted by new developments, new technology and new cultural situations. VJing is not different at all from other art forms in that sense. It is broad enough to collect from here and there what it needs and use these collected bits to put them into another context, one that may last a few minutes or hours. VJing is so broad, in both the theoretical and practical, that it can also be related to other non artistic practices. Why not repeat a question if it is still unanswered? and what does "true" or "false" have to do with a conversation? The problem, I believe, arises when we regard past ideas as something more than ongoing conversations: If we start marking them as "established criticisms", then they become monumental and thus quite vulnerable to demolition. This is why I use the word "conversation", because to me, whatever Benjamin or Adorno or anyone else has said is nothing more than a thread of thought that has not reached (and probably will never reach) a petrified state. It is entirely up to us to follow the thread or not. Personally, I find it valuable to start thinking from the point where others left off, since nothing is ever created from scratch. Ahhh...underlying assumptions! New frameworks are vital and how to the point are Cinegraphics comments. Maybe one of my favourite quotes from Goethe applies, "Grey my friend are all theories, and green only lifes golden baum." My belief is that any valid theory from this point of history must of necessity have a practical application. Perhaps a good place to start would be a clean up job on all the useless detritus and false myths we labour under. In a perfect world I would heartily agree with Cubo. Unfortunately though, many theories are fixed; many conversations are closed, or rather the underlying assumptions on which they are based. As for unanswered questions, firstly: A question has to be formulated correctly in the first place. Secondly: I believe some questions will in any case never be answered; some things simply don’t need an answer. Thirdly: Why the fuck do we need an answer for everything? Yes the difference between interaction and participation! Could there be any coincidence in the fact that interactive art which generally means expensive material and expensive infra-structure has become the currently stylish term as opposed to participatory art which has as its primary definition, to have a share in? It is valuable to pick up a conversation where it left off, but it is clear fact that there are true and false in those threads, and for the most part occidental cultural and theoretical musings have been based on half truths, plagarisations, or outright lies. This of course means that what follows usually has been distorted even further than reality. Sometimes this has been deliberate, but often has simply been done by well meaning scholars picking up the threads without really verifying whether they were true or false. So I believe that this work is of vital necessity. Even though it might be interesting to ask where has this position of privilege come from that allows us to even have this forum? When most of the worlds population works for about 1 dollar a day! Oh yes so sorry, how unobjective of me, objectivity of course being the new pet horse of both the art and science world. Acerbity aside, I think that these discourses are moving in a good way now. I just feel that its not that we reject what comes before, but we must at least accurately research and include what has been excoriated from the "Official Canons". If not our own research will be lacking and incomplete including, perhaps especially, our cultural theories. My feeling is that we need to start from a position that what has been accepted as dogma is potentially already incorporated into the framework it once criticised, and that to proceed from "where it left off" is to make the mistake of thinking these criticisms are still critical. In actuality, my feeling is that they are ritualised "critical" statements and positions which are not critical any longer. The questions about who pays, who's included and who isn't are very important, especially with digital works of all types. Instead of asking how is it "objective" perhaps we should be asking why aren't the other groups able to participate, and what that implies. A critical practice necessarily needs to begin with the premise that anything which has been accepted to the point of canonisation may no longer provide anything more than a superficially satisfying "aura" of critical thought, while actually occluding the realities of the present. Nevermind that it assumes these "critical" theories of the past were actually critical in the first place. Underlying assumptions and entrenched dogma are the fundamental problems facing people working today. (Perhaps always) |
UntitledINTERACTION, INTERACTIVE, INTERACTIVITY, SPECTATOR, SYNAESTHESIA, VJIf technology is mirroring us, then what does that say about us? Are we deliberately turning ourselves into machines? Are machines turning into us? An old question, I know, but one that's not been satisfactorily answered in my view, and one worth asking again, specifically in this context of VJing. Roker's piece, and even some dictionaries (see definitions below), for the most part define interactivity as having to do exclusively with technology. Do people interact with each other? Do VJs interact with spectators? VJs specifically, interact not just with spectators but with DJs - sound primarily affecting visual (though in some of my work recently I've been exploring the idea of reversing this (by default) hierarchy and visuals primarily affecting spectators; can the spectator's response to sound in turn affect visuals and vice-versa, making the spectator, the non-wired, purely receptive human, a conduit for the audio and visual signals to reach each other transformed, and in turn transforming the wired, active "player"- acting as go-between in the relationship between sound and vision, and in turn synthesizing the two within him/herself (synaesthesia)? Here I would tend to say "of course", but on the whole, as far as spectators affecting VJs, my own observation is that VJs are usually intently focusing on their own computer and/or the projection screen(s) to determine whether the image jibes with the sound they are hearing, or maybe not even that, in the extreme cases of ego self-involvement. But the question arises for me nonetheless of whether, if we lift our heads up to watch the audience (vidience?) watching our work, whether there is another dimension of observation and intuitive reaction we can tap into that can be explored through this medium. Just a thought. INTERACTIVE: 1. Acting one upon or with the other. 2. Of or pertaining to a two-way system of electronic communications, as by means of television or computer: Interactive communications between families using two-way cable television. 3.(Of a computer program or system) Interacting with a human user, often in a conversational way, to obtain data or commands and to give immediate results or updated information: For many years airline reservations have been handled by interactive computer systems. American Psychological Association (APA): Random House, Inc. Modern Language Association (MLA): "interactive." INTERACTIVITY: American Psychological Association (APA): Chicago Manual Style (CMS): INTERACTION: 1.reciprocal action, effect, or influence. Modern Language Association (MLA): |
What the mirror says about us, is that our technology and our art and culture can only reflect the mechanical use of the brain we are subject to. VJing in spite of its great flexibility will only reflect the consciousness of the brain driving it. The pertinent novel by the overlooked and misunderstood novelist Mary Shelley (Frankenstein) examines this quite thoroughly. The convenient definition of interactivity relative to technological exclusivity is both fallacious and exploitative. The third paragraph is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of "our" limited theorems. This discourse has been amply proven and demonstrated, especially throughout the course of 20th century culture. The Jazz era of the 1920s reintroduced so many missing elements to western culture especially dance and most especially the DRUM, that without this it is secure to say that there would not have been rock and roll and certainly not electro music and therefore most probably no VJing. All of this has been shown ad infinitum... by Ragtime, Swing & Blues and Gospel etc.. What of those receptive human conduits working for their whole lives 16 hours a day: Were "the Blues" not an interactive conduit? As for visuals how did all those black bodies effect the artistic mediums? For me we are overlooking solutions which have been hard earned. I think it is a crucial error. My point here being that it is specifically the participatory nature which has already been amply demonstrated (but not acknowledged) of primarily African, American art forms that have already given the solutions to these problems. VJing has been so tied to the DJ, it has at this point limited the form. No matter how talented a DJ may be he/she is still representing secondary information, in general not produced by themselves. This as a matter of course does not allow for participation in any real sense, from the dancers in particular. As a dancer all my life and one with much experience in Afro-American and Afro-Cuban forms, I have seen and felt first hand the real participation and real interaction between sources within the same proximity and it‘s why i have always disliked the fake tribal of Electro, ersatz at best. This is not to say that I don‘t like dance floor and Electro, but as something to really support and nourish? So i feel that VJing has been fortunate to be financially supported by this, it has allowed it to flourish, but until it really deals with other ways of thinking it will probably remain as DJing is to music source: A loud seductive medium, shiny and persuasive on the outside and ever so empty within, this would be really unfortunate and I say that heartfully because it really has such a rich potential. That is a very specific and narrowing definition to start from in the post. It is problematic to limit narrative to such a singular and quite non-universal (within the history of its analysis) framing and definition, others are actually quite close to VJing, that if one moves from one point to another in perspective or amount of information and a change occurs that transmits a new perspective and sense of the information that this is a "narrative". I also teach English and can think of many narratives, even very traditional narratives, within the canon, that could be be seen as this. Especially the use of the bookend effect of beginning with a certain scene and or key image and it gradually shifting and expanding in its associations through each new scene and shift in language and story as it progresses (much like shifting song to song/visual dialect(s) to dialect(s) within the frame of a performance. Most importantly this is absolutely not to say that this is being brought in as one to shoot down the other previous explanation of narrative, quite the opposite.
|
Interactive ManifestoPARTICIPATORY ARTHere is a "manifesto" [www.michaelbetancourt.com/art/the_movement] from 1996, so it's old and been around a while. I'm offering it for consideration as an example of participatory work and self-criticism as a work of interactivity. (It's also a little bit fun). What is interesting about participatory works is that they seem to offer a great latitude in what can be done, as with interactive works, but ultimately they like for their users to work within some very tightly defined parameters, much like the blanks in the manifesto, there are only limited options actually available, creating a work that is ultimately subservient to the creator's designs, whatever those designs entail. The reset button is the ultimate invitation to self-liquidation that interactivity demands in an uncritical fashion. Is this manifesto then critical? Not necessarily. |
I disagree, firstly with participatory work one can truly influence the parameter choice (choice of parameters). In technological interaction one can only influence the parameter; this is a huge difference! For example if I am dancing with sensors together with a DJ I will only influence the effects of the mix, not the mix itself. If I am dancing with a Cuban or Haitian or Nigerian drummer my movements will affect in a significant way the "mix", that is of course if I am saying something with real validity. There is also another crux of the discourse, the artist simply must have something to say, and not a bunch of ca-ca. Hopefully this standard will remain true.
|
What does VJing say about our world?CULTURE, NARRATIVE, VJIf we look beyond the purely formal implications, questions are raised by VJing, we can ask what does VJing say about our world and our culture. We can be certain that VJing did not emerge only because of the evolution of technology, but also because it reflects particular changes that have happened (cut?) in western culture. What are these changes? 1. The crisis of the narrative format: While narratives are still going strong, they exist almost exclusively in the realm of entertainment. Narrations are no longer the way in which a (western) culture makes sense of reality, basically because lies and half-truths have taken over, in an overwhelming way. Narratives have fallen almost completely under the shadow of fiction. 2. Information overload in our daily lives, and our incapability of grasping everything. Lower attention spans and fragmentation are direct and visible consequences of this. 3. Crisis of leadership and a growing questioning of authority. If the author is no longer the authority and everything has been (at least potentially) opened to questioning, can we seriously expect to have the final word on anything, even our own "inventions"? 4. The desire to break up the old, established assumptions and the deeply capitalist desire of being new and original. Why make cinema when I can re-invent it? In western countries, individuals have the illusion of being self-sufficient, but also face the pressing dilemma of "coming up with something different and exciting", or being condemned to rot among the grey masses. 5. According to Vilém Flusser [1], we can imagine culture as a gigantic transcoder, which has texts for inputs and images for outputs. Our images no longer represent the world directly, but rather they represent ideas about the world. An image does not correspond directly to a thing, but to the cultural discourse that has grown from that thing. Images, then, have become a new way of writing in western cultures. [1] Vilem Flusser "The future of writing", in "Writings (Electronic Mediations)". University of Minnesota Press, 2002. |
Addressing point by point: 1) I strongly disagree that the existence of narratives are exclusive to entertainment. Historical and elitist narratives are as vital as always. It’s my opinion that modern propaganda techniques have made it increasingly difficult to discern narrative realism and narrative fictionalism. So inevitably, everything becomes entertainment; with equal value. Bush choking on a pretzel, 20 Palestinians slaughtered, Lady Diana’s dirty laundry, bad theatre alas, but theatre nonetheless! Unfortunately I would conclude that western culture in general only makes sense, especially towards itself and its own reality, through the distorted prisms of its narrative machine, which by definition of its historical/hysterical self-importance simply cannot abide nor afford any crisis of doubt. 2/3) I believe these two to be intertwined. One of the primary features of propaganda in so-called democratic societies is to permit multiplicity of choice. The perfection and ubiquitous use of what I would term, FRAGMENTATORY SENSORY OVERLOAD, is clearly, if not deliberate, at least well orchestrated. As Marie Antoinette put it: "Let them eat cake". In point of fact there is far less questioning of authority than I can remember. Everything might be open to question, (debatable) but in my estimation, very little is, this going back to the problem of deeply inherited and re-iterated underlying assumptions. As for ever expecting to have a final word on anything, I would say we had, and for myself I damn well do. Especially that of my own invention, translated to that of my own toil. 4) What old assumptions? Yes desire is good, but talk is cheap. Yes, to rot among the grey masses: This being one of the most pernicious, despicable narrative fictions of all. To buy into that is examined quite well in a document I would call narrative realism. ‘Faust’ by Goethe. 5) I venture to say that images have never represented the world directly even, probably, during the Stone Age. That image does not correspond directly to a thing/person but a cultural discourse, has been amply explored in a multitude of feminist discourses. Images - far from being a new way of writing in western cultures - have been utilised (Flussers terms) since at least the early middle ages. As for literary images, haven’t these also been represented by ideas of the world? In view of the above discourse what can a VJ do but represent ideas which have already been repeated endlessly with much examination of the again, underlying premises on which those ideas are based and formulated. In conclusion, clarity of any medium (art-form or otherwise) will always depend on the clarity of the minds behind it. I believe artists of this era have a greater responsibility towards this clarity than ever before. Perhaps, a good beginning would be to take a favorite assumption - "I think, therefore I am", and cheerfully relegate it to the trash where it’s long belonged.
|
Interactive interviewWith Damian Stewart [aka Frey - http://frey.co.nz] via Skype. How would you define interactivity? Interactivity is when an object responds to the things that you do (to/near/within it). In an art context, some people reckon that everything is interactive. Actually I was talking to Kathy from NIP (Kathy Hinde - http://newinterfaces.net/nip/artists/kathy-hinde) the other day that was passing this idea on because when you look at say a painting it engages with you and you engage with it. But that kind of removes the point of using 'interactivity' as a descriptive word, because it means all art is interactive to some extent, which is what she was saying as well. I can see how one engages with a painting, but how would you say the painting engages with you? Well, because it has been created by the artist to do so. If a painting doesn't 'call' you to look at it then perhaps it's not such a good painting. I subscribe to the notion of good art as being something that actively calls up an emotional/psychological response and if something doesn't do this then it's not so good. Case in point: Lisbon's monuments. They're expressive in a way I've never seen in a monument elsewhere. But then is there a difference between interactivity by virtue of content and interactivity due to a "live" in the moment experience? i.e. does a work have to have those characteristics you describe above in order to be interactive? Does it need to have content? No, it doesn't. 'Interactive' can also mean (although I really think this sort of stuff is a waste of everyone's space) a website (or worse, a 'CD-ROM') that has 'hyperlinks' that you 'click on’, not to say that net-art is all rubbish, it just mostly is. Would you say your work is interactive? But hold on, now I want to go back actually to what you just said to me. What makes an artwork interactive in an interesting fashion is that it has physical bits that do something in response to me when I do something. This pretty much requires an installation context, and electronics and stuff. I was trying to get a better sense of your idea of interactivity as a definition regards content/no-content but you just clarified a bit...so, let me see if I understood... right, re content, no-content and also re-form and context. So, in other words: I think the process of interactivity is necessary, the 'live' in-the-moment experience is very important, and this is practice-wide for me, even if the 'interactivity' only actually appears in my installation/electronics/nerd stuff. Interactivity in "art" can be an emotional response. I was going to ask you about process just now... here's where this interview process is getting interesting for me. Now, several questions tangled up at once - Asynchronous communication. So interactive can be an emotional reaction, or it can be a participatory (yet passive too) experience of playing with buttons to get to certain places, but also it can be - and this I think is the concept we're mostly addressing here - a very present, active (interACTIVE) experience of engaging with technology to create ephemeral experiences? Yeah, all those I’d agree with, but to me the important and interesting one is the last -ephemeral is where it's at. However, what about interactivity with regards to a spectator's
relationship to a performer? As in, rather than a painting a live show
being the "object" contemplated although I don't think performance
is primarily a one-way activity; to use the term 'interactive' for a
performance might be confusing things with a theatre show where the
players actually interact with the audience. I mean the idea of performance not being primarily a one-way activity could be called 'interactive'. To invoke some handholding hippie ideas, there's a kind of an energy loop that is set up between a performer and an audience where their presence inspires further expression by the performer. My flat-mate Linda in Wellington used to talk about loving the moments when she was playing her guitar and the whole room, full of loudly talking people, would gradually fall silent to listen. What if there is a technological component between the two? Do these inform the loop or break it? Like a guitar and a PA system? Well, either, but for the sake of specificity let's say a computer. Depends, Is the performer treating their equipment like a musical instrument? Can the audience tell? I think it's very difficult to use a computer like a musical instrument. Yes, I am assuming here that the computer is acting as an instrument. Why? An important part of performing with a musical instrument is enabling the audience to understand where the music's coming from. That's body language etc.. Even if you're in a rock band it's easy to be boring on stage if you don't excessively jump around and throw your head about etc. OK, but why is that? Why is it important for the "audience" to understand where it's coming from? Is that the interactive bit? Then they know that it's happening in front of them. I don't think that's interactive. I think that's performance, they’re different. What if it's happening behind them? That's a serious question, again that's performance. It's considering what the audience is going to think/feel based on decisions you make as the performer. So you're saying that performance and interactivity are not the same, is that right? Acknowledging that you have the power as the performer, and then treating that power with respect and giving the audience something back for giving the power back to you - yeah I am saying that. I think they could be made the same using clever language, but I'm not so interested in doing performance that requires a performer and an audience. Do you think it is possible to have this kind of give and take in a live VJ/VJ type of situation? Interactivity I think requires the audience and the performer to be the same. That's interesting, but can it be between a human and a human as well as a human and a machine or object? Or is that a different relationship? I think it's harder for DJ's (this applies to laptop musicians too) because in a lot of cases the actual noises coming out of the speakers are pre-made and there's little moment-by-moment control. Good DJ's work with this, bad ones just play the track’s the object/machine needs to disappear somehow. What about VJs? I don't understand 99% of VJing. Can you say something about that then? I think video is far too dense a medium, I usually just find VJ sets irritating, and mostly there's no real connection between the sound and the visuals. Exceptions: Laetitia & Vitto's (MIO (http://3leds.com/mio) set at Bomba on Saturday. Now we're getting somewhere... Sure, our friends are always an exception, they used the same setup as on the other Tuesday, but the music was less informed by genre (they weren't trying to make Electronica, just make noises) and the visual/sound connection was exquisite. Do you think they were at all reacting to the spectator, audience, or "vidience" present, or just on their own with each other? They were reacting to each other. Intensely concentrated, their stage presence wasn't so great: Two folks with midi controllers, sitting behind laptops, but the visuals more than compensated for this. I'm not sure the audience played any direct role except as an audience. Right, so in general you'd say no. Yeah, in general I'd say no. I think I've got what I was looking for. I mean, there's the added pressure of an audience being there to pay attention, to watch, which is always an adrenaline thing. Ok, thanks so much for taking the time and all. |
|