 |
 |
hi all, i would like to pick up on the question "What happens to ideas of the 'live', over time?" & what johannes says about what is the point of trying to record a networked performance; i also struggle with the pressure to record & document something that only exists in the ephemeral moment, where the whole point of doing it is that you had to be there (virtually or physically), in that specific moment, with those specific people. whatever documentation we make of our work can never truly represent the varied experiences of the participants. yet the pressure to make documentation is huge - people always want to know where they can see the performance afterwards, & often don't seem to be able to comprehend the idea that it just isn't available on tap like a youtube video. so to talk about "the 'live' over time" is kind of wierd, because over time, it isn't live anymore (unless you mean within the duration of the performance). kelani talks about the "common 'space'" that opens up between performances, among festival participants; this is also something that we experience during the UpStage festivals (http://upstage.org.nz/blog/?page_id=1958) - there can often be a very rich exchange between artists & audience, perhaps about the performances but also about the technology, or the weather, or whatever else might be happening (as an example, during the 101010 festival there was a node* in belgrade's museum of science & technology, which had to lock its doors due to anti-gay rioting that erupted outside; artists & audience participating in the UpStage festival were locked inside the museum with the staff, continuing to participate in the festival but also communicating to those of us elsewhere in the world about the violent events that were happening literally on their doorstep). it's true that streaming technology is not new; what is new(ish) is evolving practices of real time interaction, participation & collaboration via the internet. in my work i explore how relationships between performer(s) & audience are evolving in the online environment, & how we can use the whole gamut of digital media (not just streaming) to create engaging live events - using distributive media but for more than distribution, for creation and the site of performance as well. h : ) On 24/02/12 10:25 PM, Johannes Birringer wrote: > dear all > > I read Kelani's post with some interest, and tried to imagine the festival that is described; > and to some extent I may have failed, but that is just perhaps a good starting point. > > Low Lives Festival, you report, is a networked festival -- am i right in imagining > it to then take place entirely from laptop/computer to computer? how do i imagine > it? or are there local sites - you mention "little berlin" in Philadelphia – where > performers perform in front of a physical crowd and the performance is live-streamed to > a website? ... > > I went to look for Little Berlin (the first google entry says:>>little berlin | an undefined exhibition space>> i thought that was promising) > > Low Lives 4 Philadelphia is an official Philly Tech Week Event !! > L I V E P E R F O R M A N C E > In addition to streaming performances from international presenting partners, little berlin gallery will host a live performance on one day of the festival which will be streamed out to the network of participating spaces. > Artists: Dunstan Matungwa (Tanzania) Britney Leigh Hines (Philadelphia) Marcel W. Foster (Philadelphia)>>> > so i am beginning to imagine it more. > Your first question that you echo, and then respond to: > > "What happens to ideas of the 'live', > over time?" (as you note below). One of the key components of the festival > is the sense of connection the networked spaces have – and thus the > attendees in those spaces also have – specifically as the festival moves > inbetween performances.>> > seems to take you to what happened in the local site, mostly. > > The sense of 'live' performance is most present when someone has taken the > distributed stage for their piece, but as the festival is made up of a > series of very short performances that experience soon transforms into a > real-time 'intermission' as the collective stage shifts to a new location, > artists and presenters at that space inevitably fuss with technical setup, > and the 'live' event's progression of time somewhat collapses – there is an > opening up of a common 'space' that stretches across the globe. I > understand the most intimate moments of the festival happen in those moves > in-between performances, >> . > > Thus your reference to the live in quotation marks, is it concerning the in-betweenness > of people on local site waiting for/enjoying connectedness or to-be connectedness > - with whom? and what kind of connection are you positing? Are you not also thinking > of the many that might sit in front of a screen somewhere, waiting? is the live > relating to the producing/transmitting sites, or to the receivers? would you distinguish > between performers and receivers, or are all involved telematically performing? > > I think the "live" in quotation marks is perhaps less of a problem. (over time after?) - > was not the question implying an after after the 5 minute or (how long are they) 3 minute > performance? Is not the problem that we don't know what happened after it had > happened, and thus there is no after? > > > When I go to http://www.lowlives.net/index.php?/projects/low-lives-4/ > > i find a question mark in the space where a video might have played. > > I also don't associate video or YouTube with a livestream, necessarily; > > are the "festival" performances youtubed? and stored? it seems so -- > [http://www.lowlives.net/index.php?/performance/low-lives/] > > Then if i can watch the videos next year, why would there be a temporal festival? > is the "festival" the producing agency? > > And perhaps i write from a different place now > (as a choreographer), a place removed from the initial enthusiasm that some of us > had in 2000 and 2001, when about six or seven dance studios around the US, > Europe and Brazil decided to "choreograph" or free-improvise together, and > we did it for about three or four, maybe five years, exploring networked performance > (we founded a collective called ADaPT: Association for Dance and Performance > Telematics) .... what an ambitious enterprise (inside research institutions), > and yet, how ephemeral. > > ironically, in our low case, the shelf life was relatively short (see my partners' 'ephemeral effort' > site: http://www.ephemeral-efforts.com/ADaPT.html) ; I soon after left OSU and had no more > base to conduct all the intricate and time consuming& maddening organizational logistics of such events; > here's a video ghost , ADAPT.mp4, from the past: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNM0ax3Sik > > I remember being very busy recording the live; > and later, even attending sessions with US delegates from some Washington think tank looking into "best practices" of how to > preserve "networked" and distributed dance /performance....... but I remember shrugging my shoulders, what was the point of recording the > streams of 7 different dance groups in seven remote sites, flowing together and being recomposited in real time right there and then by each > contributing performances-site-group and thus you never really have an "output" or a work as each site probably saw and experienced > something different and the audiences we began to invite to the sites, they > came to see dance and "networked choreography," so we had better be good > and that was hilarious too, since we had excellent dancers and fabulous cameras..... nothing much to worry, but > there was no clear aesthetic that had developed yet how to "compose" a joint live stream. we tinkered, > and sometimes it looked just awful. there were four of five magical moments. > > i think we stopped in 2005 or 2006, at that point we had opened our practices > to anyone in the audience wanting to play along/perform along and thus the > "choreography" gave way to video game-like open structures. Well, i stop here, > and would say, there is nothing new, Kelani, about these communications and broadcast techniques, they are > actually ancient (since the 70s and 80s or so, not to mention the televisual history of broadcasting), > and about "effectiveness," -- i think we'd have to argue over that one. > >>> I believe there is something important about the 'newness' of streaming/technology in both of these examples > that makes this work extremely effective at this point in time, but also feel certain this will continue to evolve as > incorporation of this collapsing of space and time becomes more ubiquitous in the context of fine art." > The current generation of collaborative social network streamer/producers surely might agree to some extent about > your optimism; i find myself hesitating a lot to join that chorus. Especially about your claims of "collapsing space and time." > > But i am sure there will be much discussion here on some of the claims, for example your notion of the collective? > > this collective waiting (though alone in one's own physical space) > embedded within a technology has the effect of creating a hyper-viewership that is at > intimately tied to the technology which is host to the experience.>> > > can you explain this further please, this angry intimacy of the lonely collective? > > > with regards > > Johannes Birringer > director, DAP-Lab > London > http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap -- ____________________________________________________________ helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst [log in to unmask] http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.make-shift.net http://www.upstage.org.nz ____________________________________________________________