Interactive Interview...

...with Damian Stewart aka Frey (http://frey.co.nz) via skype

... first, how would you define interactivity? (sorry for such a question on a sunday morning...)

no worries
mm.
gimme a tick.

yep
a tick means a minute?

interactivity is when an object responds to the things that you do to/near/within it
yeah
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 who 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 a monument elsewhere be..

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 a content?

gosh. good question
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...
k
umm, should i answer yr next question on my work? or stick around a bit..?


ok, i was trying to get a better sense of your idea of interactivity as a definition

sure..
re 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 v. important, and this is practise-wide for me, even if the 'interactivity' only actually appears in my installation/electronics/nerd stuff

interactivity in "art" can be an emotional response
AH HAH!
yes, i was going to ask you about process just now...
right
but hold on a sec...here's where this interview process is getting interesting for me now

several questions tangled up at once huh
asynchronous communication

trying to keep one's own thread going and yet responding to a question that pops up..
heh heh
ok, wait a sec...
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's where it's at..

but what about interactivity with regards to a spectator's relationhip to a performer?

hmmm...

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 performance might be confusing things
a theatre show where the players actually interact with the audience and

this is good
could you elaborate

incorporate their ideas/feedback into the fabric of the show

i mean the idea of performance not being primarily a one-way activity

could be called 'interactive'
oh, ok
to invoke some hand-halding 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 flatmate 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?
what, like a guitar and a PA system?

does this inform the loop or break it
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?
it's very difficult to use a computer like a musical instrument i think...

yes, i am here assuming that the computer is acting as instrument
ok, why?
because (oh-ho-ho! i like this conversation) 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?

because then they know that it's happening in front of them
no
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
hmmm
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 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 that
performance requires a performer and an audience

do you think it is possible to have this kind of give and take in a live vj/dj type of situation?
interactivity i think requires the audience and the performer to be the same

woah! 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 'tracks'
the object/machine needs to disappear somehow

what about vjs?

i don't understand 99% of vjing

great! can you say somethign about that then?

umm.. 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...

(vitto?)
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

i wish i could also copy these little icons onto the page when i transcribe for the blog...
oh you mean rui
he played too? oh snap! i missed him...

yeah, it was super-hot

hmm, back to the question though.

do you think they were at all reacting to the spectator/audience/"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.

right...
ok, well listen 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/sorta thing..
ok cool

thanks so much for taking the time and all