Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 5:26 AM, ruth catlow ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org wrote: On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don’t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. People normalise themselves in any given environment, I think. One interesting thing about social media is the way each successive successful platform is colonized by a new generation of young people (a high school generation is 2-4 years...). This both makes platforms' claims to success less impressive (much of it is merely generational), and the problem of making free alternatives more difficult (if they become successful they will soon become uncool). From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. Temporary Autonomous Zones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone They were a very popular idea in some 90s net thought iirc. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There may be a negative connection. Both are social frames to elicit particular behaviours. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms There's also Naked on Pluto by Dave Griffiths, Aymeric Mansoux and Marloes de Valk: http://furtherfield.org/netbehaviour/naked-pluto-video And #Prisom by Andy Campbell and Mez Breeze: http://dreamingmethods.com/prisom/ This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art +1 :-) - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
@Ruth @Rob, some additional ruminations on the connection between Net practice, the Happenings the 1960s in general: With the Internet social media, like the Happenings, there are opportunities for collective participation, distributed processes, real-time systems of performance, information sharing, and viewer interaction. Whereas process and documentation was essential to the shift away and dissolution of the object in Fluxus and later forms of performance conceptual art, etc., the modern day database, content management system, and social media offer new ways to fully integrate the artistic process into a dynamically-shared, distributed network. On Thu, 5 Mar, 2015 at 5:26 AM, ruth catlow ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org wrote: On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don¹t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. People normalise themselves in any given environment, I think. One interesting thing about social media is the way each successive successful platform is colonized by a new generation of young people (a high school generation is 2-4 years...). This both makes platforms' claims to success less impressive (much of it is merely generational), and the problem of making free alternatives more difficult (if they become successful they will soon become uncool). From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. Temporary Autonomous Zones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone They were a very popular idea in some 90s net thought iirc. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There may be a negative connection. Both are social frames to elicit particular behaviours. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms There's also Naked on Pluto by Dave Griffiths, Aymeric Mansoux and Marloes de Valk: http://furtherfield.org/netbehaviour/naked-pluto-video And #Prisom by Andy Campbell and Mez Breeze: http://dreamingmethods.com/prisom/ This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art +1 :-) - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
yes, i agree randall :) On 5/03/15 1:20 33PM, Randall Packer wrote: i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.” @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a “cultural record” (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a “story” of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about “Performience”? *From:*netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] *On Behalf Of *helen varley jamieson *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM *To:* netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com mailto:ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage.² @Ruth, I am complete sympathetic with the underlying premise of your position, however, isn¹t it the role of the artist to disrupt these platforms and make them our own? If it is impossible for artists to detourn, restructure, or remake social relations using anything designed by a commercial company, which is almost everything, then we are truly sunk. Like the Situationists, the detourn was intended to ³break² or ³resist² existing power structures and alter their political reality on our terms, not theirs. Can¹t we make significant work with a Mac or a PC or a iPhone or present our work in a commercial gallery or a theater owned by a corporation? It seems there is no end to the structures we are forced to work within that are commercial and corporate, it is the very world we operate in a capitalist society. That said, I think it then becomes the responsibility or the objective of the artist to pursue these disruptions within the existing framework, commercial or not, or as you point out, to ³critique and expose the logic of the platforms.² But if we don¹t challenge and confront these platforms, how else can we expose them? Regarding the linkage between the Happenings and social media, I am speaking very formally here in terms of specific paradigms, processes, and techniques that the two share in common. It is perhaps more a call-to-action then a reality. On 04/03/15 16:19, Randall Packer wrote: It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don¹t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. I have heard eminent artists and theorists make this argument before and it feels all wrong to me. Social medial platforms are designed by commercial companies to elicit very particular types of normalising exchange between masses of people. From the perspective of the platform providers, the purpose of the users actions and interactions is to squirt lucrative data. The functioning of Happenings and Intermedial exchange was to detourn, restructure, or re-make social relations- if only for a short duration. I don't see any general connection with mass social media usage. There have been media art projects that critique and expose the logic of the platforms. Moddr_'s Web 2.0 Suicide Machine http://suicidemachine.org/, Commodify Us https://commodify.us/,. Marc interviewed them here http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/commodify-us-our-data-our-terms This is why Furtherfield bangs on about the importance of Free and Open culture (in arts and software) http://p2pfoundation.net/World_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Art On 05/03/15 12:20, Randall Packer wrote: i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.² @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a ³cultural record² (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a ³story² of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about ³Performience²? From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of helen varley jamieson Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work.² @Helen: I am still interested in the idea that social media (and that includes this list) is in fact an intermedial exchange process of co-authorship, that we are in fact, together, authoring/constructing/generating a collective body of knowledge via this exchange. If you were to go back and read through the archives of NetBehaviour I am certain there is a ³cultural record² (to use the words of Vannevar Bush) with a narrative flow that captures a ³story² of the time and place and people involved. I consider social media (generally and perhaps idealistically speaking) to be expressive, performative (not proconsumative), and participatory in equal measure, narrative in a non-hierarchical structure, a theater of words and ideas. that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about ³Performience²? From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of helen varley jamieson Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came . Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com mailto:ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.talesfromthetowpath.net http://www.upstage.org.nz ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
that's quite nice :) On 4/03/15 5:09 16PM, Patrick Lichty wrote: How about “Performience”? *From:*netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] *On Behalf Of *helen varley jamieson *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM *To:* netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com mailto:ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org mailto:NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.talesfromthetowpath.net http://www.upstage.org.nz -- helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com mailto:he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
How about Performience? From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of helen varley jamieson Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:45 AM To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution prosumer is not a word for actor+audience, it's a word for producer+consumer, which is about product and consumption, rather than relationship experience. i have long hunted for a good word for this - for audiences that are participating in a really creative way in a work - i don't just mean the interactivity of pressing a button or something like that. i mean co-authoring in a way that they can insert their own creativity alter/influence the work. i have written about the intermedial audience, as a way to understand the role of the audience in cyberformance potentially other digital art contexts. The concept of intermediality offers a way to approach an audience that is as unfinished and (r)evolutionary as the work it is engaging with. It upgrades the passive spectator to an integral position within cyberformance, without relinquishing the fundamental gap between performer and spectator. At the same time, intermediality acknowledges the mental multitasking that cyberformance demands of its audience and the paradigm shift that is forced onto those more accustomed to the traditional codes of audience behaviour. (this was written 8 years ago perhaps needs updating now given then increased possibilities for audience participation/contribution.) i don't think the intermedial audience are players of equal measure, i'm not sure if this really exists (when an artist or group has conceived the work or created the context for it except maybe in gaming?). h : ) On 4/03/15 5:02 28AM, Karl Heinz Jeron wrote: Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really https://twitter.com/The_People_Came @The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- helen varley jamieson he...@creative-catalyst.com http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.talesfromthetowpath.net http://www.upstage.org.nz ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
there should be a word for actor and audience all in one² @isabel this is all very subjective, but if you look back at the history of performance art, you will see tendencies (particularly among pioneering artists such as Robert Whitman, Alan Kaprow, and others) to break down the distinction between audience and performer. The use of space, material, media, etc., are all ways in which performance has dissolved this distinction, and you see it more and more in contemporary theater that involves audience participation. It is my personal opinion that social media promises, at least in part a new look at the collective forms that emerged in the 1960s 1970s. I don¹t want to go into a full-blown lecture here (my students get enough of that), but the link between the Happening and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, the mailing lists, etc., suggest there is plenty of creative room for improvisation and audience engagement + interaction + remix in this form of participatory, collective narrative via the network. This is not to suggest a rule, but rather a potential. Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came . Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
Alas! #netartizens https://twitter.com/hashtag/netartizens?src=hash #comedy https://twitter.com/hashtag/comedy?src=hash of #errors https://twitter.com/hashtag/errors?src=hash Alas! Karl: I am intrigued but mystified and a little perplexed as to the flowing stream of Shakespeare¹s Comedy of Errors that you have adapted for the medium of Twitter and inserted into #netartizens: as to how it engages the collective nature of social media, stimulates dialogue in the context of our #netartizens exploration, provokes a response from all of us as participatory actors on the Twitter stage. To quote our modern day bard, Ruth Catlow: NetArtizen #tip1: initiate and participate in equal measure. When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Perhaps the timeless nature of Shakespeare¹s themes can be thought through for networked space, in which ³initiation² and ³participation² are in fact delivered and performed in equal measure. For me the question is: how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, to engage and respond and become entangled in the narrative, inserting our own lines, our own mistaken identities, our own comedy of errors. This is the challenge. Randall From: Karl Heinz Jeron he...@jeron.org Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:42 AM To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution Dear NetArtizens and other Netbehaviourists, I've been asked by Randall Packer how I see my work (tweeting the Comedy of Errors) relating to their objective to stimulate dialogue? Take a closer look and you will easily discover very contemorary issues. The fictional twitter account @the_people_cames appropriates the Comedy of Errors by Shakespeare. The plot was not original, of course. Shakespeare, like most other playwrights and authors of that time, based his work on another, earlier work. The plot was well known to the public of the time. It is about the use of mistaken identities, as well as the confusion of twins. This strongly relates to social media ... the realm of the NetArtizens. Happy commenting ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
Hi Isabel and thanks for your interesting comments. To segue: I am now convinced that Karl Heinz Jeron's project is a conceptual work designed to, shall we say, throw its Shakespearean thumb in the face of Twitter and collective forms of social media discourse. Here are the stats for his Twitter site: Tweets: 24,600 Following: 0 Followers: 15 What is Karl saying with ³A Comedy of Errors²? Is our preoccupation with social media and collective, socially-engaged online forms in fact, a comedy of errors? I wanted to host this month of netartizen (or netartisan, they both work) because NetBehaviour is the discussion list produced by Furtherfield, one of the foremost alternative arts organizations in the world dedicated to social art. I was interested to see how this community would engage with the netartizens theme, a discussion about the art of the networked practice, and generally provoke some debate and conversation and artistic contributions concerning how the net has influenced our work, our thinking, the way we see the world. So when I see Karl Heinz Jeron¹s project, I am thinking that his generous outpouring of Tweets is in fact challenging the notion of networked space as a socially-engaged arena for collective narrative. It seems, as Eva and Franco Mattes have described, to be intended for no one everyday.² Perhaps that is a condition we all need to address as daily media contributors to the FEED. I open it up for comments Randall Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came . Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] my Netartizen contribution
Hello, there is a word for actor and audience in the social media realm: prosumer! And hey if at all this is postdramatic theatre. Followers equals audience? I don't think so. Cheers KH 2015-03-04 0:05 GMT+01:00 isabel brison ijayes...@gmail.com: Hello, I can't really agree: When we sit in the theater, we are essentially a receiver of information that is passed from the stage to the audience. But in the world of social media, we are all actors on the stage: the fourth wall is erased, the proscenium dissolves, there are no lights to turn down, the suspension of disbelief is revised, as information (or lines) are passed not just from the one to many, but from everyone to everyone. Most of us are audience most of the time, as actors need audience to be actors. And what's the difference between a screen and a stage? except that on a screen it is not always considered bad manners to join in the act. And some of us deliberately choose to be audience, others act occasionally, some act as a hobby and others professionally ( though I'm not sure that acting is a good analogy at all for social interaction - there should be a word for actor and audience all in one, and possibly for combinations of different amounts of one and the other). how do we insert ourselves into this story, not as receivers, but as players of equal measure, Tweet! Retweet! Respond! - Seriously, that account only has 14 followers. How can it act at all in the absence of audience? Is it a bad actor? If we're all actors then how many of us are bad actors and should consider a change of carreer? Oh and a funny thing: I followed the link above and it gave me an error. It's really @The_People_Came https://twitter.com/The_People_Came. Was that on purpose I wonder? Cheers Isabel - semi-professional lurker -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
