The Cybernetics of Performance and New Media Art 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 system. performance in virtual and electronic spaces. 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 space that will hold one’s work, This essay forms an analysis of technological and configured so that the information 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 Internet-based the interaction 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 Norbert Wiener [2], refers to any technology, practitioner, and audience in these dissimilar spaces. self-regulating system that is set 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 feedback. 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 systems. 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 Time 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” quality 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 nature? Is it perfor- that is emerging within the techno- mance? In order to answer this logical arts 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 reality 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].