| contact sponge |
m3 " the final word" 5/13/02
M3 History 01 02 03
Baudrillard:
“ …What is unemployment today? It too is a a sort of artificial
satellite, a satellite of inertia, a mass with a charge of electricity
that cannot even be described as a negative charge, for it is static:
I refer to that increasingly large portion of society that is deep frozen.
Beneath the accelerating pace of the circuits and systems of exchange,
beneath all of the frenzied activity, there is something in us—each
of us—that slows down to the point where it fades out of circulation.
This is the inertia point around which the whole of the society eventually
begins to gravitate. It is as though the two poles of our world had been
brought into contact sponge, short-circuiting in such a way that they simultaneously
hyperstimulate and enervate potential energies. This is no longer a crisis,
but a fatal development—a catastrophe in slow motion.”
“economic catastrophe in slow motion...”
M3 is a research project occupying around multiple fields of
inquiry: aesthetic-erotic, economic, technological, philosophical.
M3 does this research using real time performances, installations and
digital artifacts, the following issues:
Ontology:
system and environment
open (exogenous variables) vs. closed system (endogenous variables)
system vs world
network space (and its influence on) and real space
Tangible media (media which is mapped to matter)
Action and Play:
rule bounded games vs free play
discrete, problem solving visions of the world vs. topological, pliant
visions
novel experiences of writing in the world
Experience: technology’s conditioning
of social formations and social fragmentation reformation of subjectivity
by means of pliant media and experience Deleuzian notions of subjectivity...
emergent theater (script generated vs. immaterial)...
Disappearance of the body in the mesh of the network—(a
major theme in m2) Means by which to shift the testing field from
inside to outside (that is, from the framed space of the gallery/performance
space to embedding the performance space outside in the world—both
in the physical domain (as social acts) and the virtual (as information
technologies imbedded in the world – networks) sponge utilizes multiple
media to re-imagine performance in the current state of IT… the forms
of web-network/sound-architectural installation/theater will all be used
to explore where we can push the notion of performance for both spectators
and creators…
M3 aims not to build objects but processes and experiments that set, in
experiential terms, the play of phenomenom and perception in the world
under a microscope/telescope—unearth multiple experiences /modes
of living.
Where we were-M3 discussion in October 1998
Earlier discussions of m3 centered around formal questions. Chris’
and Xin Wei’s interest in networked models of performance, Laura’s
interest in an earlier idea of constantly shifting the role of spectator
and performer during the course of an event (a room where spectators could
look into the performance (for a single individual).
As the discussion wore on, certain thematics began to emerge: notions
of system and what is outside of the system, breakdown of society in slow
motion, informational systems’ real impact on human experience, multiple
perspectives on how to view performance currently. Much of the discussion
centered on earlier ideas from the failed Stanford proposal for a production
of Heiner Mueller’s Mauser… particularly the ideas of external,
real time data from the world influencing the world inside a performance.
Much of this was generated particularly by Chris’ interest in economic
flows — In October of 1998, we proposed the following scenario that,
at the time, we believed had promise:3 SPACES... Two of these spaces are
interconnected by place. The third is only connected in time to the other
two.
ROOM 1 Going by the old definition:
THEATER NETWORK
Event I: Takes place in Room 1. Event is that of an installation that
is eventually transformed into a theater. How this transformation was
to take place (whether it took place simultaneously or pre-post) was never
determined. The room was to be filled with objects (“objects with
imbued social properties”) which people could play with. We never
knew exactly what these objects would be—several emails going back
and forth among us proposed some examples: interfaces (i.e., “matter”)
that would be used to trigger media. We also knew, however, that whatever
these “things” were or would be, that they should be interfaced
to some kind of media (matter to media theme going
back to m2’s experience of video/heat).
Some of the devices possible included:
etudes
- bundles of fibre optic cable with projection going through that
could be used to literally weave images in space,
- speech painting: microphones imbedded in objects would pick up
words from spectators/performers that would be broadcast along the
walls/floors of the space,
- interactive furniture that would allow participants to interact
with it and thus change the quality of the overall room environment.,
- howling clothing… all of these devices would somehow be prototyped
and tested as etudes in the course of a residency somewhere.
Xin Wei wanted to play with:
- fiberoptic video as a step toward massaging structureed light (de-narrativized
video) in a material way,
- splashing voice around as a way to de-logofy speech,
- howling clothing as a material erotic conversation.
We looked at this first room as a large playscape of sorts… play,
however, meant different things to different people:
For Chris, it meant the notion of construction — of literally being
able to build and shape a media space, for Laura, the shifting notion
of play between spectators/observers/performers and for XW, the notion
of “coordinated activity” … here, however, play meant for
all somehow- free, non rule-based…one working title which Chris came
up with was “Sandbox.”
Questions that arose from thinking through these
notions:
1. What do people do in room 1? Play with objects which are
connected to one another and interfaced to the computer (i.e., interfaced
to laser discs, samplers, etc). Idea was to see what kind of logic of
relations would emerge out of an unstructured “play” session.
What kinds of “coordinated activity” could or would occur? FLESH
TO SYMBOL (and back again). Room 1 definitely could be looked at as
an installation (hence, Mario Durham at YB concern that this was “installation”
and not performance). main thing was that we never
had a clear sense of what this room was or how it would be structured.
2. In terms of the "objects"
in the room, we discussed several times about putting together a team
of people to work on the "interface" portion of the project.
Some interest early on in sponge developing unique "product"
interfaces that we could market down the line—this lead from our
discussions about XW connecting to Interval Research… an option which
as all appeared to close now due to Paul Allen's hacking away at the art
side of the business. (ideas circulated around furniture, interactive
toys, etc).
3. Thematically on ROOM 1: Flexible
environment—in the first part of the “performance” (the
installation) the gathered viewers/spectators work to shape the environment
they inhabit. Each interface could change the room in a specific manner—observation
of others interacting (here, the binary of performer/spectator breaks
down).
how technology mediates social experience and relations.
how the idea of “interface” operates in the social realm.
|
|
|
