sign in sign up
<<
Home , Emergence

The of Performance and New Media

PATRICK LICHTY

Abstract through such actions as typing and mouse clicking, and so per- The emergence of many new media art genres forms a script of sorts as prescribed by the program and the com- calls into question qualitative issues in regards to puter’s operating . performance in virtual and electronic . This metaphor of the performative act could be expanded upon. What constitutes performance in technological art, The creation of a Web site, although different from interacting and how can we form a critique of new media with a word processor, also entails certain predefined actions. Data performanceby analyzing these aesthetic spaces? must be compiled, placed on Web that will hold one’s work, This essay forms an analysis of technological and configured so that the will display properly on the performance, and of the “performative” in new media Web. In Case’s model, the production and display of digitally based through the use of cybernetics as a critical tool. creative forms, such as word processing and interactive art, serves performative functions in electronic space. The next performative step in many electronic media is that of he emergence of new media art in the form of -based the of the end user, who accesses the information from video, Web projects, electronic communication, and electron- the Internet or various electronic media such as CD-ROM. The T ic installations calls into question qualitative issues in regards user follows such basic rituals as pointing and clicking with the to performance in virtual and electronic spaces. The creation of mouse as well as performing simple tasks such as text entry. Fol- hybrid virtual/physical theatrical events, Internet-based “perfor- lowing the line of thought sketched out previously, both the cre- mance art” installations, and “cybrid” live events that utilize artificial ator of electronic media and the reader/interactor with those media intelligence question the boundaries between art, theater, and “perform” the experiences that the creation and consumption of technology. What constitutes performance in technological art, and those media entail. However, there is a subtle difference between how can we form a critique of new media performance by analyzing the performative function of new media art and new media perfor- these aesthetic spaces? This discussion will examine the issues related mance, which can be illustrated by examining the basic precepts of to the performative aspects of new media art through an analysis of cybernetic theory. Weinerian cybernetics to plumb the relationship between “Cybernetics,” as defined by [2], refers to any technology, practitioner, and audience in these dissimilar spaces. self-regulating system that is up by a stimulus and response In Sue Ellen Case’s article “Performing Lesbian in the Space of Technology” [1], she posits that the process of writing on the Patrick Lichty, 4445 Alvin Dark Ave. #13, Baton Rouge, LA computer screen is a performative act, complete with its own set of 70820, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]. protocols and rituals. The writer enters this space of performance

© 2000 Patrick Lichty,recei ved 1 May 2000 LEONARDO, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 351–354 , 2000 351 Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/33/5/351/1570578/002409400552810.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 through continuous . Since then, Mary Flanagan calls “the surprise of the mance” pieces, then, most closely resemble this principle has been adapted to represent live” [4]. interactive cinema, as they frequently pre- aspects of the body, the global environ- This absence of live interaction between sent the viewer with a tree consisting of ment, and even managerial . Perfor- participants results in a simulacrum of per- options and their resultant presentation of mance is a cybernetic system in media. However, even these bor- that it creates a self-regulating sys- ders can be blurred, as the Recom- tem of cognitive exchange between binant History Apparatus’s the performers’ actions and audi- Terminal project will illus- ence response [3]. trate later in this discussion. In live theater, performance The breaking of the continuous functions as a closed-loop feedback feedback loop of live human inter- system, the process of stimulus and action in the digital artwork defines response typically regulates itself a specific range of experience for within the theater space. One the viewer’s connection with the could argue that the audiences are work/event; this is the result of a performers in their own right and preordained set of choices outlined that various reactions of persons on by the author. In contrast, live per- stage provide feedback to the audi- formance may have a set script, but ence. One could also argue that the there is a qualitative uncertainty to audience and stage personae are Fig. 1. From Holo-X, by courtesy of Mark Amerika. the interplay between the partici- simultaneously performers and pants. This uncertainty imbues the audience, creating a heterotopic event with a slight sense of chaos, space in which layers of stimulus creating an “unfixed” to the and response feed back upon performance that has yet to be themselves continuously or in “real duplicated in interactive art. time.” Except for a few cases, the- To illustrate some of these princi- ater and performance hold to this ples, four instances of new media concept of response and feedback, performance and online installation which are acted upon by the cogni- will be considered. In examining tive filters of the participants. Can these events, perhaps some pattern of we then posit that interactive art is performance/performative spaces performative in ? Is it perfor- that is emerging within the techno- mance? In order to answer this logical can be ascertained. The question, one can consider the Fig. 2. From The Perpetual Bed , by courtesy of Mary Flanagan. first of these is a work by Mark cybernetic model of performance Amerika entitled Holo-X (Fig. 1) [5]. just discussed in light of Case’s In Holo-X, the online visitor is theory of digital performativity. taken to a virtual space of The difference between conven- sexual fantasy in which we are tional performance and the perfor- greeted by S.L.U.T., a virtual mative in new media art is quite human of questionable sexual subtle. In the generation of/interac- preference, who beckons us into her tion with new media installations, room. As the visitor interacts with participants perform the acts of S.L.U.T, she attempts to titillate media creation and experience the the user with erotic stories of her interaction with the work. But in experiences in her TRON-like the cases of new media installa- digital world within the Net. She tions, there is a temporal discon- also invites visitors to spend time nection between performers, with her, to “walk” ar ound her breaking the real-time or “live” pro- Fig. 3. From Terminal Time , by courtesy of terminaltime.com. room, play with her stereo and gui- cess of interaction between partici- tar, and read the many journals that pants. The author may perform the writing formance. The creation of, and interaction are strewn around. But S.L.U.T. attempts of the work; the “reader” may perform the with, new media art creates a mimesis of to place a sexual tension upon the viewer experience of interacting with the work, but the live, but does not equal the real-time by alluding to her promiscuity and her sex- there is no feedback process of live inter- continuous cognitive interaction present in ual desire and then seeming to keep herself communication, thus suppressing what live performance. New media “perfor- at mouse’s reach, possibly making

352 Patrick Lichty, The Cybernetics of Performance and New Media Art Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/33/5/351/1570578/002409400552810.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 T.E.A.S.E. a more appropriate acronym. unpredictable actions. In addition, he is and performer. Instances in which she has In repeated visits to Holo-X, visitors to confronting his device’s controls, creating opened up the space to allow Internet S.L.U.T.’s boudoir are presented with a additional levels of meaning. Stelarc bridges onlookers to interact with her further blur nonlinear literary space in which they may the gap between performative media art and the boundaries between virtual and physi- peruse journals and “chat” with her to cre- performance with his hybridization of the cal. The roles played by Flanagan, her ate a representation of Holo-X ’s virtual lit- performance space. Although the events memories, the semi-intelligent scrims, and erary space. This is quite in keeping with also blur the border between performer and the outside audience must be considered as other works by Amerika, which seek to use audience, Stelarc’s performances on occa- they come together to create the stage pre- the multiple aspects of representation pos- sion breaks the link between himself and his sentation of the Bed. sible on the Internet to construct multime- observers by disconnecting the possibility of Nevertheless two events in the various dia literary spaces. However, in Holo-X, the real-time, personal interaction between performances of The Perpetual Bed have range of interaction possible with S.L.U.T. himself and his audience. This effect prob- raised the question of the need for live, is limited, and there does not seem to be lematizes the distinction between that cognitive interaction and feedback between much potential for free association on which is performance and that which is per- audience and performer [8]. For a 1998 S.L.U.T.’s part. While S.L.U.T is a simu- formative in nature. Such an effect has also intercontinental performance in France, an lated construct of a human being, Holo-X been noted in certain instances of Mary Internet link was established between the itself is a form of interactive literature that Flanagan’s Perpetual Bed (Fig. 2) [7]. space where Flanagan would execute the simulates performance art hinting at the ThePerpetual Bed is a virtual piece in New York and the theater where style of Annie Sprinkle or Karen Finley. reality–based performance consisting of pro- the event would be held. A video link was In examining spaces that include both jections of a computer-generated space with established, and the audiovisual imagery the body and virtual aspects in performance which Flanagan interacts onstage through was transmitted through an Internet link. events, the relationship of the body and self her laptop computer console. She maneu- Although the material was transmitted to to the aesthetic space of technological art is vers through a free-floating virtual space of the auditorium live and in real time, what brought into question. Australian perfor- her memories, many from her childhood was peculiar to this performance was that mance artist Stelarc seeks to bridge the gap and family. These memories are reduced to Flanagan had no way of receiving feedback between new media and performance. In two-dimensional scrims, which float in from her audience. Even though this inter- many of his works, the body is augmented midair as short cinematic loops or as still action could have been established to some and duplicated through technological images rendered in sepia or black and white. extent through an Internet video camera means such as prosthetic third arms, physi- Such representation implies a sense of his- and microphone, the exchange was one-sid- cally linked robotic equipment run in the toricity, as if one were sitting down to exam- ed. Thus Flanagan was completely discon- performance space, remote-control Internet ine a box of old daguerreotype photographs. nected from the reactions of the audience, installations, and virtual representations of A second aspect of note relating to these giving her no ability to interact with or his body. The performance space is further “memories” is how they interact as sound adjust to her onlookers. This caused her to bifurcated as events are frequently viewed objects. As Flanagan passes by these famil- see a need for the presence of the performer through the Internet, where during the per- iar memories in the virtual world, their in the audience’s location and for continu- formance of works such as Third Arm [6], associated sounds become more distinct, ous feedback during the performance. participants are able to manipulate the providing a metaphor for the way we call These issues became evident once again artist’s body through remote control. on memory. In addition, several semiau- in a 1998 performance in Norway, where she Onlookers are thus able to see ramifications tonomous scrim “entities” pass through the was in the same location as the audience. of their actions in real time, regardless of virtual world, reminding one of stray The evening transpired quite normally, with whether they are in the gallery or online. thoughts in the recollection of a story. In Flanagan presenting the piece on stage at the In these works, the key cybernetic prin- other performances, online visitors can console. What was unique was that several ciple of the feedback loop appears on a interact textually during the performance audience members were aware of the poten- number of levels: the performer-artist rela- through VRML “windows” in the virtual tial problems that her absence would present. tionship, the artist-machine interplay, and world. Thus The Perpetual Bed creates a These onlookers remarked that although the self-regulation of the machines them- hybrid world of the artist’s reflections and they understood she had performed the piece selves. In addition to the real-time manipu- memory where we visit with her, if only for remotely in other performances, the lation of the living body in performance, a little while. was that the artist’s presence was necessary to Stelarc is also augmenting his performances In this work Flanagan is operating as create the atmosphere of performance. Both with additional levels of stimulus and feed- performer, maneuvering through the space events, from Flanagan’s perspective as well as back through his technological prostheses, from her laptop console, narrating verbally from that of the Norwegian observers, would both physical and virtual. and textually as she recounts her mnemon- tend to underscore the importance of locat- Thus a performance is created. ic world. This juxtaposition of live stage ing performance and audience in the same The performer is in real time, even if only performance and online installation space. This suggests the viability of a Weine- telepresent, and responds with defined yet restores the interaction between audience rian cybernetic model of performance and its

Patrick Lichty, The Cybernetics of Performance and New Media Art 353 Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/33/5/351/1570578/002409400552810.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 requirement of live, real-time interaction trying to create a new for events between on-stage persons and audience like the ones discussed here, and there is a members. danger of reinscribing old discursive Even though the concept of performance boundaries with new taxonomies. cybernetics provides a robust model for the The genre of performance-based tech- study of theater participants’ , nological art will continue to proliferate as there are events that blur the boundaries artists and performers learn (or choose) to between performance and the performative. explore the creative potentials of techno- One such work is Recombinant History logical media. As Douglas Kellner has sug- Apparatus’s audience-based interactive video gested [12], the emergence of a new media Terminal Time (Fig. 3) [9]. During the culture will call upon its constituents to piece, the audience is presented with a series create new creative spaces to construct of questions at three separate junctures, and metaphors expressing experiences within the piece registers the response through the that society. Perhaps by analyzing electron- volume of applause. Using these responses, ic and theatrical spaces like those discussed the Upper Cyc Ontology–base d “ideo- here, the issues of representation and inter- logues” [10] of the piece select clips of his- action these genres make visible can be torical imagery and narration in real time to brought into sharper focus. create a history of the world that reflects the audience’s biases. References What is unique to Terminal Time , how- 1. Sue-Ellen Case, “Performing Lesbian in the ever, is the fact that it utilizes a system in Space of Technology: Part I,” Theatre Journal 47 (1) No. 2, 5–10. (March 1995). which several internal expert systems select 2. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, or Control and the imagery by “consensus.” They will not Communication in the Animal and the Machine necessarily return identical historical narra- (Cambridge, MA: Technology Press, 1948), p. 13. tives for repeated showings, even when the 3. Peter Anders, Envisioning Cyberspace (New York: audience’s response is the same. This McGraw-Hill, 1998), pp. 10–25. uncertainty hints at the beginnings of free 4. Personal interview with the author, July 1999. association and feedback while staying 5. Mark Amerika, Holo-X (1997); www.holo- x.com/. within certain parameters typical of live 6.Stelarc, from Stelarc Home P age; performance. As in live theater, this work www.stelarc.va.com.au/. exhibits traits of the exchange of stimulus 7. Mary Flanagan, The Perpetual Bed , University of and feedback, but it only does so at three Maryland Center for Baroque and Renaissance predetermined in the execution of Studies, Baltimore, MD; Oct. 1998 performance. the installation, whereas in human-based 8. Personal interview with the author, July 1999. events, the feedback loop of social interac- 9. http:/ /www.terminaltime.com. For an account of Terminal Time by its creators, see pp. 445–46 of tion works continually throughout. On the this issue. other hand, the uncertainty of outcome, 10. For more information on the Upper Cyc even when the system is presented with Ontology, see Cycorp at http://www.cyc.com. identical selections, alludes to the possibili- 11. See, for example, N. Katerine Hailes’ How We ty of technologically mediated cybernetic Became Posthuman (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999). However, a broader discus- performances that call into question issues sion falls outside the scope of this essay. of human/computer interaction and the 12. Douglas Kellner, presentation before the Elec- cognitive aspects of technological art. tronic Culture & Communication Section of the There has been much excellent work Popular Culture Association, San Diego, CA (March 1999). that takes its impetus from cybernetics as a method of critical analysis [11]. The analy- sis presented here creates only one of a Patrick Lichty is an engineer, technological myriad of possible interpretations of per- artist, independent curator, and writer with formance in technological spaces. A cyber- nearly twenty years’ experience. His latest netic analysis of technological performance Internet artwork, Grasping at Bits , recently is useful in allowing the creation of episte- gained an Honorable Mention at Ars Elec- mological metaphors for examining new tronica 2000. media art and technologically based perfor- mance. However, there are challenges in

354 Patrick Lichty, The Cybernetics of Performance and New Media Art Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/33/5/351/1570578/002409400552810.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021