If 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 visual primarily affecting spectator; 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 spectator affecting VJ, 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):
interactive. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactive
Chicago Manual Style (CMS): interactive. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactive (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA): "interactive." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2007.
INTERACTIVITY:
the extent to which something is interactive; the extent to which a computer program and a human being may have a dialog
American Psychological Association (APA):
interactivity. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactivity
Chicago Manual Style (CMS): interactivity. Dictionary.com. Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactivity (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA): "interactivity." Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. 12 Sep. 2007.
INTERACTION:
1.reciprocal action, effect, or influence.
American Psychological Association (APA):
interaction. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interaction
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
interaction. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interaction (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"interaction." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2007.
Showing posts with label interactivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interactivity. Show all posts
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Models and Frameworks
Narrative 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 as appropriate.
Why does "participation" really matter--and how is it different from "interaction"? My feeling is that this may be the site where things can begin, but only if we start by rejecting the intellectual-ideological baggage of established theories and be willing to question (if not entirely reject) what has been previously accepted. To participate is very different than to interact. Participation implies a high degree of equal, peer to peer engagement where all the agents are involved in the creation of the parameters (constraints) of the work.
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 as appropriate.
Why does "participation" really matter--and how is it different from "interaction"? My feeling is that this may be the site where things can begin, but only if we start by rejecting the intellectual-ideological baggage of established theories and be willing to question (if not entirely reject) what has been previously accepted. To participate is very different than to interact. Participation implies a high degree of equal, peer to peer engagement where all the agents are involved in the creation of the parameters (constraints) of the work.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
VJing as anti-narrative
I believe that the work of a VJ can be characterized 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:
The work of a VJ goes against all the traits of narrative. It does not constitute an alternative form of narration, nor a protonarrative, since it systematically breaks all the grammatical constituents of narrative. In fact, it essentially destroys grammar itself. According to Jerome Bruner[1], the required conditions for a narration to exist are:
1. A means for emphasizing actions performed by agents to achieve goals
2. A sequential order that must be established and maintained. Events and states should be linearized 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
VJ'ing escapes from all of these four conditions. In a performance, the VJ's 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 useles. 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.
Bruner also argues that humans have a predisposition to enter and understand the world through narrative. We tend to construct narratives in order to explain (to ourselves or to others) our experience of the world. We even use narrative to create fictions. If it is true that VJing breaks all narrative conventions (and yet it is presented in a stage and is viewed by an audience), then we could think that people will still tend to construct a narrative around it. In this case, it will almost necessarily be a narrative about the VJ act, a narrative "meta" level that emerges from anti-narrative, and possibly defeats it. A VJ show, or VJ set as it is often called, can become a story in itself, with all the elements that Kenneth Burke[2] distinguishes as appearing in any dramatic discourse:
1. The act. Q: What happend? A: "The VJ got on the stage and started to play some images, along with music."
2. The scene. Q: Where did it happen? What is the background situation? A: "In a club, in an art show..."
3. The agent. Q: Who is involved in the action? What are their roles? A: "The VJ and we, the audience. The VJ plays, and we look, listen and imagine."
4. The agency. Q: How do the agents act? By what means do they act? A: "The VJ might be trying to synchronize image with music. Maybe he is using a special interface that allows the incorporation of gestural language in her performance... how does the interface work? What software does she use?"
5. The Purpose. Q: Why do the agents act? What do they want? A: "Maybe the fragments that the VJ presents are trying to tell us something. Why does she say that? Why is the performer doing this? Well, I think that ..."
My conclusion is that the audience plays an active part in VJing, but in a level which trascends 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
[2] Kenneth Burke. See: "Burke's Pentad", http://www.rhetorica.net/burke.htm
The work of a VJ goes against all the traits of narrative. It does not constitute an alternative form of narration, nor a protonarrative, since it systematically breaks all the grammatical constituents of narrative. In fact, it essentially destroys grammar itself. According to Jerome Bruner[1], the required conditions for a narration to exist are:
1. A means for emphasizing actions performed by agents to achieve goals
2. A sequential order that must be established and maintained. Events and states should be linearized 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
VJ'ing escapes from all of these four conditions. In a performance, the VJ's 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 useles. 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.
Bruner also argues that humans have a predisposition to enter and understand the world through narrative. We tend to construct narratives in order to explain (to ourselves or to others) our experience of the world. We even use narrative to create fictions. If it is true that VJing breaks all narrative conventions (and yet it is presented in a stage and is viewed by an audience), then we could think that people will still tend to construct a narrative around it. In this case, it will almost necessarily be a narrative about the VJ act, a narrative "meta" level that emerges from anti-narrative, and possibly defeats it. A VJ show, or VJ set as it is often called, can become a story in itself, with all the elements that Kenneth Burke[2] distinguishes as appearing in any dramatic discourse:
1. The act. Q: What happend? A: "The VJ got on the stage and started to play some images, along with music."
2. The scene. Q: Where did it happen? What is the background situation? A: "In a club, in an art show..."
3. The agent. Q: Who is involved in the action? What are their roles? A: "The VJ and we, the audience. The VJ plays, and we look, listen and imagine."
4. The agency. Q: How do the agents act? By what means do they act? A: "The VJ might be trying to synchronize image with music. Maybe he is using a special interface that allows the incorporation of gestural language in her performance... how does the interface work? What software does she use?"
5. The Purpose. Q: Why do the agents act? What do they want? A: "Maybe the fragments that the VJ presents are trying to tell us something. Why does she say that? Why is the performer doing this? Well, I think that ..."
My conclusion is that the audience plays an active part in VJing, but in a level which trascends 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
[2] Kenneth Burke. See: "Burke's Pentad", http://www.rhetorica.net/burke.htm
Monday, 10 September 2007
Interactive Ideology
[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, bu specifically misleading, providing a mask for the reassertion 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 acountability 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" that typically accompanies interactivity 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 a basically authoritarian stance.
At the same time, we are expected to believe that interaction offers a breach to the apparent control and dominance of authorship. There is a paradox here that becomes evident at the level of praxis.
The big question we should be asking of all these "interactive" systems is in what way do they teach us to accommodate the status quo? Interactive systems are inherently domineering--they allow certain actions, disallow others and teach their users into positions of accommodation and adaptation to the parameters of a human-designed system that does not allow variances or enable most alternative uses. The image of artist within such a system is demiurgic (demagoguery) assertign its dominance while denying its presence.
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, bu specifically misleading, providing a mask for the reassertion 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 acountability 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" that typically accompanies interactivity 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 a basically authoritarian stance.
At the same time, we are expected to believe that interaction offers a breach to the apparent control and dominance of authorship. There is a paradox here that becomes evident at the level of praxis.
The big question we should be asking of all these "interactive" systems is in what way do they teach us to accommodate the status quo? Interactive systems are inherently domineering--they allow certain actions, disallow others and teach their users into positions of accommodation and adaptation to the parameters of a human-designed system that does not allow variances or enable most alternative uses. The image of artist within such a system is demiurgic (demagoguery) assertign its dominance while denying its presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)