Month: November 2016

My notes on Digital Aesthetics and Embodied Perception: Towards a Postmodern Performance by Rosemary Klich and Edward Scheer. 

 

Multimedia performance of: “Modell 5’s Granular Synthesis”

 

“…new media is defined by the principles of Numerical Representation, Modularity, Automation, Variability, and Transcoding.” (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 179).

 

“Through its meddling with the structure of the representational image, the ability of the digital medium to augment then simulation of reality, and so create new possibilities for performance, becomes apparent.” (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 184-185).

 

“The digital domain allows Granular Synthesis to denature and deconstruct image and sound components, and bring them into a space of abstraction where they can undergo shared algorithmic procedures. These algorithmic procedures are also conceptual formulations that Granular Synthesis apply to fusions of image and sound elements in order to alchemically renature and thus convert them back into lucid and persuasive fields of meaningful representation.

 

(Shaw, Cited in Klich and Scheer, 2011, 185).

 

“This work highlights the impact of digitalisation of representational imagery and explores the ramifications of this in relation to the rere-sentation of human bodies.

The medium in this work is not attempting to hide itself, to become immediate, but is foregrounded in the audio-visual field and re-emphasised in the reception of the image across the four channels. As such, the work is primarily ‘hypermediated’ in that the digital mediation of the sound and image is overt, and key visual element is the acting of the digital medium upon the representational image. This process is called ‘granular synthesis’, the name to a technique derived from the principles of digital sound design in which samples are split into tiny pieces of less than 50 milliseconds’ duration. These are called grains, which the different packets of grains are played at different speeds, creating phases” (granularsynthesis, Cited in, Klich and Scheer, 2011, 185).

 

“Physical reactions are unavoidable, and make their performances and installations a ‘dreadful’ experience wholly in keeping with Burke’s notion of ‘negative delight’. This disconnection from everyday is like being taken hostage in a vibrating color-space(ship) [Sic.]” (Richard, Cited in, Klich and Scheer, 2011, 86).

 

“The work invades our senses, assaulting and penetrating them. The pul-verisingly phat base-driven techno soundtrack feels as if it is doing permanent damage to our hearing even through the ear plugs provided while the component to Takaya is shown in extreme close up. These effects are hypnotic, and the atmosphere changes from an initially oppressive feeling to the experience of immersion. Jeffrey Shaw suggests: ‘The often seemingly aggressive audiovisual installation shake the viewer out of the stupor of habitual consumption and, in the best traditions of the avant-garde, bring about an unusual, even shocking, level of experimental intensity’ (Shaw, 2004). Yet the odour of sweaty bodies squashed into a small, hot room and the pounding base rhythms punctuated by Takeya’s synthesised screams affirms the liveness of the event even as it accompanies the inhuman four-channel projection”  (Kilch and Scheer, 2011, 186).

 

“At an immediate level, the work functions to produce the ‘hyperreal’. The hyperreal is created when the mediated, virtual, or simulated are perceived as the real: ‘simulation of the real produces the hyperreal’ (Stevenson, 2002,p. 166). The images presented in Modell 5 are recognisably human features, though they are based on digital information which produces this hyperreal effect. Takeya’s face gradually transforms and mutates, and an image of an exotically beautiful woman becomes an entirely alien thing. The confusion of reality and virtuality creates a haze of hyperreality in which the ‘mediatedness’ of the images is accentuated[Sic.] ” (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 186).

A still capturing the intense atmosphere of Granular synthesis mid-performance.

 

Ideas relating to the subject of “Postman”.

 

“…envisions the emergent relationship between the human and the machine as creating a hybrid subjectively that is continuously moving between the material realm of bodily agency and the informational realm of digitality. As Brian Lennon elucidates, ‘cyborg or posthuman neither dystopically rejects the automaton, nor transcendentally dissolves itself in it, but instead moves continually between nature and culture, organic and synthetic, individual and collective’ (Lennon, 2000, p.66). [Sic.].”

 

(Lennon, Cited in, Klich and Scheer, 2011, 189).

 

“This kind of tormulation represents the context for the performer in multimedia performance, the constant moving between registers of perception and between material and informational modes of being in the world, between image and flesh.” (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 189).

 

“Hayle’s influential book, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics (1999), explores the complexity of the human-machine interface and argues for an ‘embodied virtuality’. Hayles looks into the history of cybernetics to demystify the emergence of inhabited virtuality as the new condition for social existence of

and outlines the nature of this cultural shift. Hayles’s ‘posthuman point of view’ is characterised by four key assumptions that precondition its formation. First, informational pattern is privileged over material presence, so that biological embodiment is not viewed as a fixed and immutable origin or destiny of life but rather as an ‘accident of history’, as contingent and subject to creative mutation (Hayles, 1992, p. 2). Secondly, consciousness, widely understood as the locus of human identity, is viewed as an ‘evolutional upstart trying to claim that it is the whole show when in actuality it is only a minor sideshow’ (Hayles, 1999,p. 3). Thirdly, the body is viewed as a manipulable prosthesis, so that extending or altering the body with other prosthesis is essentially just the continuation of an ongoing process that begins before birth. Fourthly, the posthuman view constructs the human being so that it can be ‘seamlessly articulated’ with intelligent technology.”

 

(Klich and Scheer, 2011, 189).

 

“The posthuman subject rejects the ‘natural’ self, having become a composite, ‘an amalgam, a collection of heterogeneous components, a material-informational entity whose boundaries undergo continuous construction and reconstruction’ (Hayles, 1999,p. 3). As a fantastical as this may sound, this kind of posthuman subject negotiates and is interpolated within informational space as an ongoing feature of its social existence. When we check out balance online and navigate the portals of the online business environment, we live this hybrid experience. We are, for the purposes of the transaction and the entire online world, a username and a password combination. At our terminals we are grounded in a different and sensational world but this world in its social manifestations is cybernetic space in which our virtual and real experiences combine in a continuously constructed hybrid subjectivity”  (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 190).

“…’the internet is not so much a case of a lack of physicality at all, but an alternative kind of operational system which connects physical bodies and machines with physical bodies in other places’

 

***

‘cybernetic corporeality is an extended and extruded embodiment that connects a multiplicity of remote bodies, spatially separated, but electronically connected.’

 

***

 

‘technology does not only replace what is missing from the body, but rather it constructs unexpected operational architectures. The body is not about lack, but rather about excess. It always has been. (Even the biological body alone performs with redundancy.) we are all prosthetic bodies with additional circurity that allows us to perform beyond the boundaries of our skins and beyond the local space we inhabit. Operating in the electronic space and electronics architectures, the body has spatially extended, telematically scaled loops of interaction’”  (Scheer Cited in, Klich and Scheer, 2011, 198).

 

“In the virtual world we may consider the physical self as being absent, and in the real world we recognise the physical self as being present; however, when in the virtual self is no longer limited to the virtual world but becomes a functioning double, spatially located in material reality, the participant simultaneously exists in the real world as both a physical body and an informational pattern”  (Klich and Scheer, 2011, 201).

 

 

Works Cited.

 

 

Klich. E and Scheer, R. (2011) Multimedia performance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

duduchier (2011) Modell 5 – Granular Synthesis. 3 September. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATWljMbvVTg [accessed 17 November 2016].

 

 

 

 

Theatre, Theory, Postmodernism. (1991).

 

“…performance generally presupposes our conflicted sensory experiences (which will differ by race and age, class and gender) of the technological scene and mobilizes audiovisual phenomenological reality of the stage. The theatre’s social function, therefore, will need to be reconsidered, and its current prediction for myth and science fiction more closely analyzed” (Birringer, 1991, 175).

 

“…the seductive appearance of endless technological semiosis has certain limits even if it were already possible to assume that the electronic mass media’s havior but indeed creates a new theoretical space “space” (contemporary, simultaneity) in which everything is subject to simulation. […] that would mean the end of the theatre of representation” (Birringer, 1991, 175).

 

Works Cited.

Birringer, J. (1991) Theatre, Theory, Postmodernism. United States of America: Indiana University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When We Talk of Horses Or, what do we see when a play?: Dan Rebellato.

 

“the way we watch theatrical performances is to make-belive that we are seeing the events represented (Rebellato, 2009, 19.

 

“it doesn’t require a complicated mental process whereby we convert perception into imagination, real experiences into fictional mental images. Instead, I perform an act of make-belive and then I just watch the story unfold as if it were real” (Rebellato, 2009, 19).

 

“to suggest that what we imagine and what we see are the same thing” (Rebellato, 2009, 19).

 

“you can’t imagine something without paying it attention” (Rebellato, 2009, 21).

 

“the most important difference between perceptions and mental images that I want to discuss is that mental images are indeterminate.  For example, let’s say I imagine a man. if someone asks me, ‘does this man you’re imagining have a beard?’ it is perfectly comprehensible for me to say I don’t know because I hadn’t imagined that aspect. That detail has not yet formed part of the imagined scene. I might think about my mental image again to get the answer but what I’m actually doing when we do that is deciding the matter of his beardedness. Before I made that decision, the man I imagined was neither bearded nor clean-shaven” Rebellato, 2009, 21).

 

“If there were a flock of birds in the sky outside, there would be a determinate number of birds in that flock. But Borges can perfectly plausibly summon to his imagination a flock of birds that is of an indeterminate number. And, because mental images can have some aspects determinate and others not (we might have known the skin color of the imagined man but not his facial hair arrangements), we can know something of the volume of birds without there being a number, and so there need not be a God ” (Rebellato, 2009, 21).

If you are seeing something then you are playing god. Less about there being a God, but more how our mind works that the information we receive is good enough to work with.

 

“we might distinguish this second use of the imagination is to call it ‘imagining that’. If I imagine that something is the case, I don’t need to visualize it at all. If I imagine that Hitler won World War 2, that Sarah got that dream job, that I were a Master of Wine, I might conjure up something roughly visual, but it’s not necessary, or particularly helpful, to do so” (Rebellato, 2009, 22).

 

 

In one sense, watching a play is much like reading a novel. When we read a novel, we are given verbal information to build up a picture of the imagined world which we might visualize – if we believe in mental images – or simply amass as information. The stage is only different in that the source of the information is itself visual, otherwise theatrical performances ‘are narrations carried on by other means: by means of objects and images visually presented’ (Currie, cited in Rebellato, 2009, 22).

The idea of me readingHarry Potter compared to how someone else imagines it, the information that you are given about something is only about as far as you are willing to go. The idea of a green pony is just that, you would not see it as blue or pink.

 

“The theatre has, within its technical means, similar flexibility. Old can play young, women can play men, black can play white, wood can play stone, large rooms can play small rooms, a wooden O can play the fields of France, and words can play horses printing their proud hoofs I’th’receivingearth. The means of theatrical production are metaphors for the worlds they represent. Metaphor is not limited”(Rebellato, 2009, 25).

 

“The closer the stage and the fiction are together, the more representation becomes identical with itself. Theatre as metaphor requires a non-identity of the two” (Rebellato, 2009, 27).

 

Theatre requires imagination and metaphors, it works because in our minds things we see are like other things. Our mind fills in the missing gaps. However, the one thing that is detrimental to that mind is if that thing is real and tangible. I.e. space, location then you are confined. The idea of Blasted within a hotel room… You crave something for your imagination to fill in the gaps. However, if it is laid out you invest more. The question and problem really is, how much information your hold and supply yourself. The idea of the metaphor become integral. It is simply up to the active spectator on how much they bring into this given space.

 

 

My observations.

In conclusion, there is no way of defining the correct way of what we are seeing. We as individuals have each very differently views. What we and, I am seeing is arguably very different. There is no way of seeing the real character onstage as written by the original playwright, you know this and are inherently aware of the discourse taking place in performance. You are just watching an actor, you are ghosted by that given actor from previous performances you have witnessed or have prior knowledge of. The idea of the of the eyes, you will always look for the phrenological line between the perceived theatrical work and the world of the play or text. Dan Rebellato draws issue with Henry V not apologizing for not showing a battle, saying sorry for it not being real and not containing ‘real theatricality’. The article, asks what is the process of what people i.e. spectators are seeing and how does it work, what is the illusion? Unlike Bertolt Brecht’s theatre, that is laid and projected in a form where you are aware of what you are seeing is not really what you were seeing i.e the suspension of disbelief. Your imagination is doing your cognitive thinking for you. You don’t think that actor or ‘person’ you are not in an illusion otherwise you would surely intervene and ask the question, where is the line between illusion and investment and where are its limits? What are the limitations of quality, imagination, and understanding? What is the difference between having  Tim Crouch instead of a human being Dad? How is using an object more convincing, why is this good as this? The idea of a metaphor, the over fictionalization and, the romanticized image that related to the humanistic or physical quality.

 

Works Cited.

Rebellato, D. (2009) When We Talk of Horses Or, what do we see when a play?  PerformingLiteratures:  Taylor & Francis Ltd. 14 (1) 17-28.

 

 

 

 

 

My notes: How did we get here and, where are we going?  Seminar by James Hudson.

 

Drama historically started with the text, especially the single-author playwright configuration.

 

 “…of English theatre in the twentieth century, this at least can be said, that it is better than the English theatre of the ninetieth century” (B. Ifor Evans, 1948).

The Bricks and Mortar men, where wealthily individuals who monopolised theatre during the beginning of the 20^th century, based on a star system. They used famous faces to draw in crowds to performances and owned most of the established theatres within London during this time-period. If they lost capital on a production they would simply sell the theatre recovering any loss they had before undergoing any given production. (Similar to the current financial outlook on western American theatre regarding commercialism, I.e. Broadway.)

 

Terrance Rattigan 1911-1977.

Terrance Rattigan, displaying his acute Britishness.

 

• Prestigious British theatrical critic Terrance Rattigan, who was mainly known for work that was concerned with probing aspects of the heart, and used his mise en scène (some kind of simulation or recreation of what the audience would be used to, I.e. a drawing room or a parlour). His theatre is arguably not for the well-educated, however for those that are looking for an easy-going pastime or the idea of an intellectual appearance which is ultimately a façade for the passive spectator to become lost in. As Terrance Rattigan stated, he imagined his ideal theatre goes as being “Aunt Edna” a spectator who is interested in the idea of art and what it means, however, does so in an unconnected, uncomplex manner and uninformed way simply put – (challenge your theatre-goer at your peril.)

 

“A playwright must be his own his own audience. A novelist may lose his readers for a few pages; a playwright never dares lose his audience for a minute.”

 Terrance Rattigan

Kenneth Tynan 1927-1980.

Kenneth Tynan photographed outside of the National Theatre’s Board’s Office.

 He was theatrical provocateur and controversial in views extremely outspoken and the first person to say “Fuck” on British-television during a live-broadcast.

 

Predominately known as a 50’s theatre critic both in Britain and America. Kenneth Tynan was offered a job in New York which carried with it a huge amount of cultural power.

 

Was keen for the British establishment to reinvent itself or pull something from the American continent in reinvention. (The idea that theatre writers where a small pool of talent and attempts should be made to explore beyond this.) Theatre is boring when it is about the middle-class.

 

The idea that of the theatre writers, writing from a Kensington flat for the girl they love: merely to break the ice.

 

“Not content to have the audience in the palm of his hand, he goes one further and clinches his fist.”

                                                                                                            Kenneth Tynan.

***

Important moments.

George Devine, Quote taken  from their mission statement which in those days, it was revolutionary statement about attracting young people to the theatre. (The right to fail: attributed to Tony Richardson, we have an obligation to do an obligation that might not work, that represent risk and challenging, that might challenge the audience.) Making a statement of pushing the perimeters of what is normally seen on stage.

 

The Royal Court is one of the most important theatrical companies, as it dragged British theatrical culture into the modern age. Seen as “the writer’s theatre.”

 

Joan Littlewood within her company there is no strict hierarchy, everyone was allowed an equal voice. No division, understood Brecht and brought his theatrical thinking’s and methodologies to the mainstream UK.

 

The formation of The English Stage Company. The Royal Court and its importance in premiering the important writing for the next year or so.

 

Waiting for Godot (1955), Samuel Beckett didn’t think of himself of a dramatist, wrote that in a break from writing for Novellas. He wrote them and then had them translated so he had complete control over his work.

 

British theatre had censorship since 1737. Until Edward Bond: 1965-68. Scripts had to be submitted to the office of the lord-chamberlain. And had strict penalties for content that contained the following sex, god, royal family, swearing and politics among others. However, there was a loop-hole in the law where a (public) theatre company could not put on a show that had been refused, however a private company could.

 

1968 Edward Bond submitted a further play which returned from the censor i.e. the Lord Chamberlin with one note: “His Lordship would not allow it”. This ultimately was the moment which led to a general realization and questioning about the ludicrousness and restraints of the censorship system, and the censorship ceased to exist.

 

Peter Hall. The RSC founded 1960, The National Theatre opens with Hamlet, which premiered the founding of the British National Theatre.

***

Playwrights: 60’s, 70’s, 80’s.

 

Plays from the perspective of being written by the playwright.

 

Edward Bond Marxist: Society needs to become democratic.

 

Harold Pinter was writing about power and domination. Won the Nobel-prize in (2003) his speech was about politics, Iraq and the issues around 9/11 and the invasion of Chile.

 

The overall effect of Carol Churchill and the theatrical world becoming more experimental under her influence.

 

Joe Orton’s text that helped redefine farce as it was known in mainstream theatre in favour of political satire and mockery of the established social, economic principles.

 

90’s The New Face of Writing.

 

Blasted (1995) was important and was written by Sarah Kane and later was coined as “in-yer-face theatre” However, is better described as experiancial, e.g. (for the audience to feel as if it has been through some kind of theatrical experience.) Arguably there is no such thing as “in-yer-face theatre”– This opened the wider theatrical world to new types of playwriting.

 

Theatre became about who is the new best playwright? Who is young, and who has a story to tell? Who and what can sell? Through this thinking there was an influx of new, diverse writing which ultimately outshined historically theatrically successful established writers, in favor of new untold or explored work. In essence more working-class theatre.

 

The New Writing of The 90’s – It’s the process of how it gets there. Theatrical productions begin to change because drama groups want to encourage this process as there is financial gain and these performances and texts are marketable e.g. Shopping and Fucking (1997) (The idea of the me-and-my mates play, also the idea that playwrights are young, urban-people that write texts about their experiences of life that feature a cast of people that can be related to from a working perspective, narrowing down the focus.) Young playwrights are encouraged to write about their own lives – Auto Ethnography, relevant and current work that will sell to a wider demographic outside of the typical bourgeois theatrical communities.

 

Onwards, where are we heading?

The rise of the popularity of the verbatim text and play with its emphasis on the importance of the now. Popular culture and the rise of Site-specific and Site-generic theatre. The idea and questioning of theatre itself namely, why does theatre, have to be in a theatre? The idea that theatre in theatre is boring and also the exploration of taking theatre out of its “given” or “conventional” space.

 

The arguably pending downfall or unappreciated theatrical critic and the idea that no one cares about reviews anymore (not in the conventional journalistic sense). 2000 onwards, and the rise of the new-wave bloggers and the mentality of a society that is driven by constantly validating their views and opinions to wider communities or peers.

 

Work Cited.

Evans, B. Ifor (1948) A Short History of English Drama. London: Pelican.