hey! Thanks for sharing! The description is actually evocative for me.. Here's an attempt to pronounce the evocation - am wondering whether it actually refers to stuff you were saying or an utter mis-interpretative exercise on this side of the line..
here's the sequence for this particular interest (?) --> seems like what you describe here seems to be: #X the interval between 2 improvisational operations: #1 improvisation as to do stuff spontaneously(#!) or without intentional (to intentionally perceived) prior plan. As a possible element - or even a focus - of a performance and, indeed, performativity. #2 improvisation as an operation of making do with whatever is available for achieving x outcome. (get that from: "always the possibility of failure, glitch, lag & other technical "improvisations"") #Y the frequency of risk: Risk in art-linked practices as an innate ontological nescessity. As an element required for the art-linked wave to Be, to live? i.e. to have a sense of art rather than the non-risky stuff entertainment does. (Perhaps interesting to note here that in the risk dept, the division tends to be of art, rituals, entertainment - rathar than art & design..) I can trace this from Hegel to Groyce with a stoppage at Addorno. Though my suspicion is that this is fairly partial.. (apologies!) and #! in my mind the negation of improvisational oriented practices by the very nature of, errr, being practices - hence learnable and improvable on going activities - that beings often tend to refine as they go along. (ie, at least THINK they get better at doing the improvisational type. Indeed, some people are pretty much experts at certain kinds of improvisations, being asked to come and Perform their expertises precisely because organisers think there isn't much of a risk involved..) This in a sort of double ironic way - or just a dark one - puts a question re being spontaneous to the extent of rendering spontaneity a sort of ideological otherness. A sense of an outside Other that's supposed to be - in order to actually be itself - a very genuine sense of the self being what it is. No? Is it too complicatedly arranged? Complex? Hummm.. Should I re-improvise? Cheers and a very XY#! windy sunday from 1st BST day! aharoninor? xx > improvisation is an important part of my work for many reasons, but in > particular when creating live performance via internet technology there is > always the possibility of failure, glitch, lag & other technical > "improvisations" that can require an improvised response; and secondly > with an interactive audience who are able to participate, comment and > insert themselves into the work it's also very important to be able to > improvise in response to this. improvisation emphasises the liveness of > the work and the conversational nature of cyberformance. & it's fun :) > > h : ) > > On 27/03/15 12:43 35PM, if wrote: > >> Yes.. Interesting.. Improvisation, in terms of meanings, has a range of >> time - as in an act in a given present for which a person hasn't >> rehearsed/prepared. A sort of an hack with a focus on time rather than >> object or objective. >> >> What's the context for this immersion in improvisation? (..or is it an >> improvised immersion..?) >> >> cheers! >> >> aharon xx >> >>> Improvisation offers a wealth of cultural connections. Part of my own >>> practice is rooted in jazz. Jazz is a contested territory, with deep >>> roots. I don't find that the same can be said of formal systems, >>> which are the other side of my practice. That's probably why I try to >>> muddy them up with symbolic meaningsâperhaps also to spite my >>> academic education, that insisted on the purity of formal systems and >>> saw symbolic meaning as a sort of vestigial "literary" appendage. >>> >>> Of course, historically, formal systems such as Western music theory >>> are charged with all sorts of cultural freight. Their emptying out of >>> nationalist fervor and programmatic detail seems to have been a >>> Modernist >>> project. The pure forms were supposed to offer a universality. >>> Post-colonial and post-structuralist critiques suggest that notion >>> was seriously flawed. We still seem to be recovering from that error. >>> >>> -- Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Joumana Mourad < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Pete >>>> I find myself working on and exploring similar questions? Looking at >>>> telematics as well in todays presence. Can you contextualise your >>>> thoughts? Hppy to talk, to explore, On another note >>>> tomorrow I am joining Marlon Barrios who is working at the Moment in >>>> Poland to explore across platform creation... >>>> ;-) >>>> On 26 Mar 2015, at 12:43, Peter Gomes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm currently immersed in Improvisation across its many forms and >>>>> >>>>> >>>> processes; music, performance, cinema, acting, making, living. >>>>> I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on potential connections >>>>> between >>>> improvisation and networks and contemporary ideas in and around >>>> technology. >>>>> âOnly he who is well prepared has any opportunity to >>>>> improvise.â â >>>> Ingmar Bergman >>>> >>>> >>>>> Pete >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
