Matt, are responding to Cedar Lake's "The Copier"? To Evan's post? To my post? Or unrelated?
Interactions with audience do not have to be based on "smoke and mirrors" or mathematical equations. There are many possibilities, if supported by artist, to allow for organic, unexpected forms of audience involvement.
Maybe you could write more about post-structuralism and dance? Are there any video examples? I'd be very interested in such a post.
mpgough
· 1 year ago
unrelated, but not unobserved.
all performances are unique, the notion of 'interaction' does not change this fundamental truth.
it is easy to make the audience feel they are having an effect on the outcome, when it has already been predetermined. (this is the point of the math). you may feel your choices offer a 'new' performance, but all the outcomes are already 'known'.
would you consider a 'choose your own adventure' book to be interactive?
your interaction is 'expected', and thus structural rather than organic. the performers may respond to your stimuli, but in a predetermined manner. you are not able to affect their compositional filters.
participatory performance is not the same as audience interaction. "still crossing" is participatory performance (as are flash mobs etc.), "the copier" is audience interaction (of sorts).
this isn't as issue of quality/content, but how we describe practices.
store
· 1 year ago
Math is boring.
mpgough
· 1 year ago
hi store,
i think you miss the point. this is not about maths, but showing that giving a few options to the audience still gives limited outcomes.
All Comments
Interactions with audience do not have to be based on "smoke and mirrors" or mathematical equations. There are many possibilities, if supported by artist, to allow for organic, unexpected forms of audience involvement.
Maybe you could write more about post-structuralism and dance? Are there any video examples? I'd be very interested in such a post.
all performances are unique, the notion of 'interaction' does not
change this fundamental truth.
it is easy to make the audience feel they are having an effect on the
outcome, when it has already been predetermined. (this is the point
of the math). you may feel your choices offer a 'new' performance, but
all the outcomes are already 'known'.
would you consider a 'choose your own adventure' book to be interactive?
your interaction is 'expected', and thus structural rather than
organic. the performers may respond to your stimuli, but in a
predetermined manner. you are not able to affect their compositional
filters.
participatory performance is not the same as audience interaction.
"still crossing" is participatory performance (as are flash mobs
etc.), "the copier" is audience interaction (of sorts).
this isn't as issue of quality/content, but how we describe practices.
i think you miss the point. this is not about maths, but showing that
giving a few options to the audience still gives limited outcomes.