Summarize Mia Makela's five essential elements of Live Cinema, and relate these elements to the Live Cinema Explosion during Avant-Garde Night at the Lumina Theater.
The five essential elements of live cinema are space, time, projection, performance and participation.
Spaces refers to digital space as in how much room an object takes on your computer. Also it refers to desktop space or the programs and manners from which a VJ picks his videos from. Performance Space refers literally to the location of the performance and has an effect on the performance as a whole piece. Projection Space refers to the location of the projectors. Am I being too obvious? Physical Space, which is not as obvious, is the distance between the audience and the performers. In Lumina I am not too sure about the activities related to digital or desktop space, but the performance space was Lumina Theater, the projection space was from behind the theater and from the sides and there was basically very little Physical Space.
Time refers to the difference in seeing live cinema being seen live versus the act of viewing a film that has already been made. Both carry with them specific advantages and and disadvantages. The other way the writer refers to time is through the use of loops, which effect both viewers response and film maker response. In Lumina many people left during the films, because they did not feel compelled to sit through films they did enjoy, yet during Live Cinema less people left feeling obligated to stay, one consequence of "live cinema versus usual cinema."
Projection refers to spatial projection, meaning how the place you are in effects your viewing of the film. Also it refers to Media Facade, a concept I relate best to seeing a piece in the Guggenheim museum which is simply a call for peace in various languages hanging from the wall. At our presentation the idea of projection was not something that was obvious to me at the time. Yes we projected from various projectors throughout the room, but there was something very traditional about the literal space of the place we were in. I have to say this concept is extremely interesting, but I think projection doesn't really need its own category. Would it not fit more precisely in the category of Space? I am probably not right, just a causal observation on my part.
Performance refers, to well, the performers. In the case of live cinema the VJ's who work behind the laptops. Also it is refers to a concept the writer calls "liveness." Basically how the well "live" nature of the things, causes the things effect. HMMMM...maybe that only makes sense in my brain. Gesteral interfaces are the ways in which the performers become a part of the creation with the use of their bodies., with things like sensors. In Lumina there was certainly a profound sense of vitality, a code word for "liveness" throughout the performance and I personally think our VJ's did a fine job.
Participation is quite simply the way the audience responds and interacts with the piece. In Lumina the some of the audience was given instruments to make make "music" with. This added to the awareness and power of the piece.
The five essential elements of live cinema are space, time, projection, performance and participation.
Spaces refers to digital space as in how much room an object takes on your computer. Also it refers to desktop space or the programs and manners from which a VJ picks his videos from. Performance Space refers literally to the location of the performance and has an effect on the performance as a whole piece. Projection Space refers to the location of the projectors. Am I being too obvious? Physical Space, which is not as obvious, is the distance between the audience and the performers. In Lumina I am not too sure about the activities related to digital or desktop space, but the performance space was Lumina Theater, the projection space was from behind the theater and from the sides and there was basically very little Physical Space.
Time refers to the difference in seeing live cinema being seen live versus the act of viewing a film that has already been made. Both carry with them specific advantages and and disadvantages. The other way the writer refers to time is through the use of loops, which effect both viewers response and film maker response. In Lumina many people left during the films, because they did not feel compelled to sit through films they did enjoy, yet during Live Cinema less people left feeling obligated to stay, one consequence of "live cinema versus usual cinema."
Projection refers to spatial projection, meaning how the place you are in effects your viewing of the film. Also it refers to Media Facade, a concept I relate best to seeing a piece in the Guggenheim museum which is simply a call for peace in various languages hanging from the wall. At our presentation the idea of projection was not something that was obvious to me at the time. Yes we projected from various projectors throughout the room, but there was something very traditional about the literal space of the place we were in. I have to say this concept is extremely interesting, but I think projection doesn't really need its own category. Would it not fit more precisely in the category of Space? I am probably not right, just a causal observation on my part.
Performance refers, to well, the performers. In the case of live cinema the VJ's who work behind the laptops. Also it is refers to a concept the writer calls "liveness." Basically how the well "live" nature of the things, causes the things effect. HMMMM...maybe that only makes sense in my brain. Gesteral interfaces are the ways in which the performers become a part of the creation with the use of their bodies., with things like sensors. In Lumina there was certainly a profound sense of vitality, a code word for "liveness" throughout the performance and I personally think our VJ's did a fine job.
Participation is quite simply the way the audience responds and interacts with the piece. In Lumina the some of the audience was given instruments to make make "music" with. This added to the awareness and power of the piece.
What are the challenges facing "laptop performers" in relation to audience expectations about "liveness" and performance? How are some artists addressing these challenges?
Audiences have come to expect that films are made before performances of them and there is a sort of desire for the artist to prove that what they are making is in fact, live cinema. In London a group called Slug projects both the performance and the performer to insure a truly live experience. However, considering that this may affect the audience to not fully appreciate the full effect of the show by focusing on the proving process; another group actually shows the audience live and records it in order to make the process both of proving liveness and fully being engaged without having the burden of proving its liveness. That last sentence, had it included longer words, may be well worthy of Fried's approval.
Interesting read. Easier to understand the some things we have read. However, despite her passion for her craft and despite the amazing feeling I got upon seeing live cinema, I am still not sure if we should really call it "film." Sure it utilizes methods of film makers and the physical stuff of film, but their is something about it that is too different, too unique, to be called "film." Perhaps I say this because in my heart of hearts, despite both enjoying and appreciating my own live cinema experience, I can't beat the feeling of seeing a good ol' fashioned film. Live cinema is fun, but for me on a personal level its not the same experience. Live cinema is the roller coaster, and the cinema I love is the penetrating, powerful stuff the haunts your dreams and lives in you not from showy liveness, but from the quiet and assured cinematic presence. I am positive, in an attempt to not sound like Freid, that some people do honestly feel the reverse is true for them in their own lives. The only reason I say this, is that I just do not think they are in the same category. Yes, I know this article is about drawing distinctions, but I think perhaps, and I am fully aware of the dogmatic nature of what I am saying, that maybe we should just call them both something else. Cinema and Live VJ performance? Well, I will work on the absurd and pointless practce of defining art into subcategories later.
Audiences have come to expect that films are made before performances of them and there is a sort of desire for the artist to prove that what they are making is in fact, live cinema. In London a group called Slug projects both the performance and the performer to insure a truly live experience. However, considering that this may affect the audience to not fully appreciate the full effect of the show by focusing on the proving process; another group actually shows the audience live and records it in order to make the process both of proving liveness and fully being engaged without having the burden of proving its liveness. That last sentence, had it included longer words, may be well worthy of Fried's approval.
Interesting read. Easier to understand the some things we have read. However, despite her passion for her craft and despite the amazing feeling I got upon seeing live cinema, I am still not sure if we should really call it "film." Sure it utilizes methods of film makers and the physical stuff of film, but their is something about it that is too different, too unique, to be called "film." Perhaps I say this because in my heart of hearts, despite both enjoying and appreciating my own live cinema experience, I can't beat the feeling of seeing a good ol' fashioned film. Live cinema is fun, but for me on a personal level its not the same experience. Live cinema is the roller coaster, and the cinema I love is the penetrating, powerful stuff the haunts your dreams and lives in you not from showy liveness, but from the quiet and assured cinematic presence. I am positive, in an attempt to not sound like Freid, that some people do honestly feel the reverse is true for them in their own lives. The only reason I say this, is that I just do not think they are in the same category. Yes, I know this article is about drawing distinctions, but I think perhaps, and I am fully aware of the dogmatic nature of what I am saying, that maybe we should just call them both something else. Cinema and Live VJ performance? Well, I will work on the absurd and pointless practce of defining art into subcategories later.
No comments:
Post a Comment