Hypertextualities

As a complete computer-phobe I found this theory very difficult to get my head around. I have however attempted to summise it briefly in my own words.......

Hypertextualities are froms rendered through HTML. Described as "non-sequential writing with reader controlled links" (Nelson 1992). This form allows the viewer to merge into the sphere of the art work itself and often allows them to continue and expand it. For me this seems a strange situation being part of the real and the virtual simultaneously.
Whilst being blocks of text all interlinking one another, hypertext also has no centre, you can enter and exit anywhere. I liked the idea that this gives the reader control over the outcome rather than the author.

Technology and Art

This post comes from a reflection on a reading from Gabriella Giannachi's book 'Virtual Theatres'.

It is interesting to note that the consideration of technology as art only really began to emerge around WWI. It came from a new found obsession with mechanics which can be seen in the work of Meyerhold and also Schlemmers dancers of the Bauhaus. The Futurists movement can be seen to praise the technological age feeling it was their new art form.

Around the 1960's emerged the idea of 'Cyborg art'. In 1984 William Gibson wrote a science fiction novel from which came the term 'Cyber Space'. The book has been so influencial in modern thinking and it is now hard to imagine art, fiction and technology being separated. For me I view cyberspace as quite an alien thing, although I am sure it has affected my life in some ways. I also view the form of cyber space as it creating a new social group in the world. A virtual community on a scale larger than any other previously experienced.

Many views suggest that it is the viewer that constitutes a 'real' performance of virtual theatre. It made me think when it was supposed that the difference here is the performer is inside the work of art.

Live Vs Recorded

I do feel that I have a strong feeling that there is great difference between live and recorded performance, in terms of impact, excitement and passion.

I have personally never been able to reacreate the sort of connection that I get with live actors on stage or vice vera when performing myself the electricity that comes from an audience which enevitably makes every show exciting and different, when watching recorded performances.

For me there is something very stale about watching a T.V. programme or an internet video, its old and you can turn off the switch whenever you want. In a live performance the 'actors' must work hard to keep you drawn in and at the end of the piece you feel appreciation for their visable efforts. With the 'live' every time is different, mistakes may happen or spectators reaction may put a completely different spin on events.

When you watch a performance it is you and only the others sharing that experience with you, who will ever witness that event in that exact way.
There is something special about that, isn't there?

What Constitutes a Performance?

What a difficult question.........
It is something that i have been encouraged to think about for a few weeks now, and I am perhaps a little clearer about it in my mind.

I feel a performance is...........
* A group or individual presenting themselves in any form of time and space.
* Something which is witnessed by others
* An occurance or event which leads to some kind of provokation of thought for
spectator or performer

I feel a performance does not have to be.....
* A planned event
* Ocurring in any defined space such as a theatre or T.V studio
* Justifiable

It seems that Auslander believes that one should not attempt to distinguish clear differences between live and recorded performance. Rather he draws on their similarities. For example saying that much like a T.V. image can be there and gone in an instant so too can a live performance.
Auslander writes:
"On this basis, the historical relationship of liveness and mediatization must be seen as a relation of dependence and imbrication rather than opposition. Similarly, live performance cannot be said to have ontological or historical priority over mediatization, since the live was brought into being by the possibility of technical reproduction."

You Tube Glory!

This was something I heard on the news this weekend, and was yet another reason for me to hate the publicity people can receive from posting on blog or video sites.

It is a story about an ex-army officer who urinated on a dying women -

"Sue Jacobs, prosecuting, said Anderson first kicked the helpless woman and when she groaned but failed to move or open her eyes, fetched a bowl of water and threw it over her. "Apparently urged on by the fact that Scott Clement and Simon Whitehead found this amusing, you then stated that you were going to urinate on her. Simon Whitehead cleared space on his mobile and recorded Anderson urinating all over Christine's body." One of the group shouted: 'This is You Tube material.'"

When considering the question of what is performance? This group of people obviously thought that they could have some kind of fame or glory (however sick that may be) by showing this act world wide on you tube. It was a form of virtual performance recorded on a mobile phone intended for publication on the Internet.

With the virtual world it seems that anyone can make themselves a 'star' or at least have their 15 seconds of fame!!! One of the main reasons I feel people want this is due to the importance of POWER in the Western World today. I think it will take a lot of questioning as to why people are not happy to keep videos etc. of themselves private.

If there was no you tube would the terrible acts committed by these people have ever occured?

Will Virtual Kill the Real?...

This post is copied from a website questioning whether Virtual Plays Kill the Real Theatre?

When talking about watching plays on the Internet they argue.......

"Except, of course, the thing they will be reacting to will not be theatre, but an electronic imitation of it. The virtual audience might well declare the show a classic or a flop, as Duffy suggests, but their assessment can only be deeply flawed. What makes theatre special, the more so in this era of DVDs, computers and TV, is that it is not pre-recorded or mediated, it is there in front of us. Not only does it have three dimensions, but it also has presence. You can smell it. And on a good night, you can taste the sweat.

I've never seen a recording of a theatre performance that is not flat and lifeless. The rules, the rhythm and the spontaneity of a live event are meaningless on the small screen. Call me a Luddite, but the Second Life musical is not the future of theatre. By giving a distorted impression of what theatre is like, however, could it actually damage its real-world equivalent?"

The site for this is: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2007/08/will_virtual_plays_kill_real_t.html

Hello this is my attempt at a blog.

I don't know if it will work as my computer skills are next to none.

But here goes..........