Harriet's encouraged me to post my ideas on my blog. In my current state of too many ideas in my head, and the nagging little perfectionist voice, I resisted at first, but see that it could be useful!
This is supremely rough, but getting clearer. I welcome any questions. I would also just love to hear what thoughts spring to mind when reading through this. Free association welcome! About your own practice, what you have seen in mine, other artists, other critical thinkers....
I am also still working out the right balance and hierarchy of these ideas to make sure I emphasize the pieces that are more relevant to my work at this stage and don't dwell on exciting, but less relevant ones.
I need some perspective....opinions, thoughts, that might help unclog the mass of interesting thoughts in my head!
Finally:
**What is the obvious question I haven't asked that is in plain sight after reading this entry?
What is the question?
1) multiply identified, dispersed subject - The Techno/subject in performance
- good position as a multi-media artist
- I don't feel that this notion has really hit the public consciousness even though the idea's been around for over a decade at least
2) can technology be used as a bridge between the different levels of embodiment?
2a) is technology a barrier or a bridge to live performance?
- this is where my initial proposal left off. It seems unfinished, but possibly still relevant and interesting if paired w/ #1?
3) As a performer, how do you extend your sense of embodiment to your audience?
3a) "stretching your skin" across different media; collapsing time/space/identity/reality boundaries?
3b) bringing them into the process when it's still a process instead of a final product?
- I'm going to be asking this over and over as I develop my practice regardless of whether it manifests itself this literally in the research proposal or not.
Pieces that might fit into the puzzle and flesh out the argument:
a) revisiting layers of embodiment that I explored in original proposal draft from January.
b) post-modern/techno theorists in 1990s recurring theme - boundaries between self/human body and animals/nature and technology are eroding. there's a resistance and fear of this, but also an opportunity to re-cast notions we hold of the Self or Individual
- Vivian Sobchack "technologies such as the computer have profoundly changed the temporal and spatial shape and meaning of our life-works and our own bodily and symbolic sense of ourselves."
c) virtual reality vs. reality
- Mark Poster article section "Reality problematized" - "'virtual reality' is a more dangerous term since it suggests that reality may be multiple or take many forms."
d) it's just a tool. learn it. use it well.
- Laurie Anderson, Pamela Z, Piplotti Rist, Janet Cardiff: artists who are comfortably working with high tech tools but don't overstate the importance of the technology/tools that they use to create their work.
- example: Laurie Anderson says her work has backed off from the big multimedia extravaganzas. However, her performances are still highly technology-reliant: microphone, synths, violins. Stripped down aesthetically, so that it becomes more "invisible" and doesn't overwhelm the content, but it's still very integral to the creation of her work.
e) free software movement/electronics hacking like Dorkbot
- de-mystifcation of technology through building your own tools, taking apart existing technology and seeing how it works. How you can change it to do something else
- I see a total link to the resurgence of the DIY/craft movement.
- open source de-emphasizes authorship and de-centralizes the creation and dissemination of the technology, creates a community of people who want to keep ideas free and open (like blogging about potentially 'proprietary' thoughts like I'm doing right now.)
f) Amelia Jones - why her as key critical thinker to my research
- explicitly links dispersed, multiple subject to performance and technology
- using technology explicitly to break with notions of fixed Self and extend beyond constructed boundary of the skin (ew! messy!!!)
- the contemporary subject is already technologized and therefore same rules don't apply because no longer simply "human"(ist?)
- from this point of view, the reason for an artist to place their own body/Self in their artwork shifts: - Jones "This mediated, multiply identified, particularized body/self proclaims the utter loss of the "subject" (in this case the fully intentional artist) as a stable referent (origin of the artwork's meaning)
- Body/Self - sense of Self is not lost, just redefined in connection to the layers that make you up and surround you, including the intangible, "virtual" ones
Bringing it back to my practice
- processing a live feed means I can interact with my own images moments later and an audience can witness the full creation of this (embodiment through relation of performer's physical body with the virtual body, physical form of the video technology, proximity of audience members's physical bodies, most likely projection of audience's bodies on the screens with performer's virtual body, journey together through creative process instead of audience simply witnessing a final product)
- even though there are multiple, simultaneous projections of my image, I am part of a larger
system. The video projections allow a more literal manifestation of this idea
- thinking about my practice as a performing art appeals to me because theater/performing arts have always created a space for me where I can explore modes of expression that might otherwise be suppressed in day to day life.
- primordial? expression. pre-verbal: Lisa Gerrard, Meredith Monk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
hi lena
i think you need to look at why you are fascinated by live and mediated self, multiple selves to find the direction you want to go. you are very well read clearly debating relevant theories and need i feel to now find the content and passion to your technolgical investigations- what are you trying to express/communicate/etc, where does improv fit into this if thats what you are still investigating. you work in such an alien way to me, putting technology first, i am trying to work out what to suggest- my way is to centre on the idea first,technology then works to express this- why i ditched the projector in my nunnery piece in the end
anyway-just some initial thoughts to band about- lets chat thursday-maybe i've missed the point so tell me again....
x
Thanks for the feedback. It's definitely relevant. I know I'm having a tough time figuring out what the relevant pieces are to bump up and which are secondary support pieces. Also, how much of what I'm doing in my practice to include in the research paper. I know they are intertwined, but I still can't quite figure how much of each bit (practice & research) to express in each component. I think my tendency is to keep them too separate, although they should make sense when seen together.
Tough one. Looking forward to chatting tomorrow night. I need the external feedback and discussion to help process things. :)
another follow up to your comment. It's interesting because I don't like I'm putting technology first. And I appreciate your comment because I'm concerned if this is what is coming across in my work. This year I've really been trying to use what I know (video camera) to help me express ideas that I have that couldn't be expressed without it.
I think the multiple, dispersed self is, in fact, the idea and direction I'm interested in expressing and exploring. And I'm hypothesizing that this idea can be well expressed with the juxtaposition of live and video self.
It all seems very formal, and yes, quite technical, but at the same time that is who I am. And I don't think I want to completely ditch the idea that I am coming from behind the camera moving in front of it. The fact that I've spent all these years behind the camera is informing who I relate to my medium from a different vantage point.
I think I might have confused you more. I might be talking a load of kak....only way to work through it though, isn't it?
hi lena
so....am still trying to unravel here to try to be of use to you...here goes...
so if the idea of your practice is multiple dispersed self in front of and behind the lens, are you exploring themes of both observer and observed, how one relates to the other...i still think as a spectator of your work, that i'm left confused as it is very abstract- i can't but help ask 'but what's she doing?' and 'why is she doing that?' , 'whom is looking at whom', 'where as the spectator am i supposed to be looking' if there is not prescribed or flowing action/ narrative/ content them i'm left thinking its about pushing what's possible with technology. i do like the experiments with real sound and the layering of this through playback in multiple selves although not sure why.
i think you are hitting some technically interesting ideas with siting and using camera/projector/laptop which is why i said your work is about technology. why are you using these particular forms of technology as their body now is centre stage. the non-verbal workshop i did taught me a lot about use of gaze which i think could be particularly interesting to develop in your work to direct the spectator to the point of interest for example, or implicate them- another layer to the lenses already looking in the performances- video/projector/your own. i was struck by the laurie anderson use of tiny lenses (in the article form your forum)to view the audience which was then projected behind her (the scale of the tool to imply spying)- bringing the audience onto the stage- we already know they were being looked at by the performers and now they become implicated as part of the performance themselves.
the other thing with the non-verbal workshop was the importance of doing nothing and use of pause. and what doug said the other day about being drawn to the projection more than the live could be explored. also when one should be still and one moving to keep the attention where you want it. non-verbal work is extremely interesting as its all about body language,gesture, space, time and objects and in much of your work you use it.
in lauras workshop it was interesting as she was working with live and mediated self through taking an idea (past and present self) and then siting and using the relevant technology to play out that idea. to me that seems tangible, a reason for the technology to be there and in the workshop people were shifting their bodies both in the recorded and live at the right distance/pose that related to the dialogue they then had between live and projected self.
ok- so might be completely off track here- in thinking back to your original practice working with others' live performance is what you are really interested in is adding multiple stage presences in interactive relationships between dancers/ musicians/ etc - so exposing the technology- its apparatus and what it can do? in which case maybe work with performers and choreography with the technology? the layering of sound could be interesting with musicians both live and mediated?
or if its about self and dance and sound, perhaps work on the performative action/ choregraphy/ persona more first and then bring in the technology to match. or run two practices at the moment exploring the techology and one exploring live presence and then draw them together?
sorry if this seems rambling and i'm still not convinced i'm there yet at all with what you're trying to say at this point in your practice. i do think theres a lot of interesting stuff in what you are investigating and like you say the relationship between our critical papers and our work is a challenging one; the theoretical interrelationship without it being a commentary on our work but still providing us with a sound base to push our practice.
have watched your videos you posted yesterday and will comment on them...
see you later. hope this is of some use! it also helps me in my own practice too engaging in discussions like this- the persona and use of technology being my own nightmares/interests/dilemmas
x
hi again,
I really appreciate these thoughtful comments that you are leaving.
With this last one, the main thing is that I think you are struggling, as an observer, with the same things that I am struggling with and interested in as a performer.
I need to digest what you've said more, but one thing of note is back to the balance:
at the moment, I am much much more comfortable with playing with the technology and realize that the bulk of my work over the next few months will be working on my performance. That means working with projected/recorded images of myself and seeing what's there.
I also want to try having my audience moving around in the space with me, watching what I'm doing while it's evolving, and catching glimpses of themselves in the projected images. See how that shifts the dynamic, and if it helps draw in the audience, or perhaps just goes too far. My hunch is it won't be too far if I continue doing this diaphanous, non-verbal performance, since the audience will be able to move within the space and in a way they choose.
That's probably not a very clear response. Should have some tea....
Looking forward to seeing you guys tonight!
hey lena
glad this is of some use!
quick response- working with audience sounds good and implicating them unwittingly in the performance
the other non-verbal workshop thing that might be useful and springs to mind is the ability to express an emotion- we worked with creating loss and anger, apprehension a lot through body in space and objects in manipulating atmospheres
anyway. enough of me!
x
Hello!
Humph - there is a lot there! lol!
I think that with the audience being incorporated into the performance and dispersing them as well as yourself could be the key to some of the problems that you are having with your work.
I understand what Harriet is saying and have to admit I am still left begging the question "but why do you want to disperse yourself?" There are some really interesting ideas but I feel (esp as an audience member) that I don't quite understand it yet.
However, perhaps seeing myself (again as an audience member) in the way that you see yourself in the performance (both as performer and maker), it would give me a hook into the work. I would be forced to see myself from your point of view and would then feel in a more able possisition to start unravelling the work.
xx
I find interesting the multiplicity of self that the technology you are using promotes. There is often to much emphasis on embodiment solely as only "real" self. Unless I'm truly embodied in that object/body I can only approach as spectator so I see no differences between the body in each space except possibly their framing. They are all different modes of a visual but still visuals. I like the duplicities and mimesis occurring through this as I begin to approach each body as a separate entities modified by their framing. The technology as I see it, in what you are experimenting with, are soley the prosc arches your placing them inside--so rather seeing them within one frame they are being reduced with each interface. It's an interesting perspective rather than enlargement which is definitely favored by most--due primarily to cinematic expression..
Now the idea that harry mention of putting technology first. I think we can get easily trapped in that game as it is often used as a negative against it's usage. I could argue if we are to take something simple as a book --we don;t judge that technology or question it's function in dispensing it's message--they why should a laptop do it in performance--simply its doing the same thing.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your reply.
I think your comment about embodiment is why I like Amelia Jones so much. She consistently highlights and advocates for the different ways that artists can be considering issues of embodiment through the use of different technologies.
Interesting about the screens being receding prosc arches. Hadn't thought of it that way. Noted, will contemplate as I move forward.
I also find your comment about the tendency to make the video big interesting because I feel like my work with film and video over the years has continued to push my assumptions about what was possible with my medium and hopefully undermine held conventions in a way that would interest others too.
Finally, your comment on technology reminds me of my queasiness over the word "mediatized." I've decided that I don't like to distinguish between types of mediation, or types of technology. I don't see it as a useful distinction for my work and feel that it's often framed with some sort of ominous or negative undertones, as you mentioned. Related to this, I've even considered that the trained dancer/singer/actor's body might be a form of mechanization. This helps me think that some level of "mechanization" is often necessary in performance, and that it's quite a common, normal way for us to use our bodies without it having to be the only way we use our bodies.
Hey there
i think that the mini prosc arches idea is very interesting and the reduction of video opposing the large 'cinematic' rectangular screen (which i hate just lazily whacked up at the back with performers standing in front of and why i'm here to work against this) is great and will force the audience to become engaged as they have to peer in, get closer. Or are you working on a combination of the two scales? How would this work?
about the technology references I have made- i didn’t mean this as a bad thing but without literal content in the work its difficult for me to latch onto something as an audience member, I feel I am looking at whats presented before me- the video technology and the body are all we see so I look at what both are doing, its shell apparatus, movement and navigation between computer and human. I latched onto this as a visual artist i am questioning the look and feel, aesthetics, etc of all the elements i am presented with and linking it to finding a concept. Also you have a loathing of video monitors (is this purely because its been done so much before?) which makes me look harder at your chosen technical apparatus, how it looks, functions, how you can deceive the viewer through challenging its use (presenting a playback as though it was live), I thought was intrinsic to your work- we start to say, ’that isn’t what you normally do with a camera, why is she doing that?’ If the technological apparatus was obscured then I wouldn’t be looking as this, only the screens and live body. How would your work be if we couldn’t see the camera only the tiny screens? i think overall that the perception of this may fall based on the context you wish to end up positioning your work within-are you media arts/ live artist in a gallery or music/dance performance, multi-media theatre or elsewhere?
Maybe as you explore ways of manipulating persona and disperal that will be what we then look at, but how that is ensured, if that’s what you’re after, above the technology, will be interesting to work out.
The book and the laptop argument doug mentioned- I think that these cannot be compared as a book is accepted as both a object and an prop depending on what its role is in performance and whether it is real with pages or fabricated( eg painted box, functionless scenery item on shelf). The laptop will be questioned if put on the stage to be seen (why that one in particular is used will potentially have associations with the identity/status of the person using it- snazzy technogeek, etc), as it’s a new toy in contemporary theatre performance, its usually very much a functioning object, and an object that potentially has many uses within and control over the performance, it can control many of the performance elements eg sound, visuals. By siting the video cameras and sound desk on the stage in Sarajevo stories it could not help but become that technology was exposed as part of the narrative- the modern means of communication, skype on the screens, or so I thought! But again, its all down to the context of your work. Another possible angle is that we look at the book cover as look at the shell of the technology, can't pretend not to look at both?
A reverse of the Emperor’s new clothes story?!
Anyway, enough rambling, I’m losing the thread....!
x
Post a Comment