hallo all thanks, Ricardo , for your very considerate response, much appreciated. And I agree with all you, necessarily, and had almost anticipated that you would raise these distinctions, but also recommendations on the significance of recording such encuentros, and the need for access to such workshops/blogs or documents to those who may not be able to attend many of these workshop or have dedicated media arts etc, facilities and studio. From my experience of having worked in Cuba and Brazil, the differences in availability of resources were wide ranging at times and at other times negligible, and in Belo Horizonte we worked with about 70 participants in a "media lab" that was held in a wonderful old fashioned theatre in the park - Teatro Francisco Nunes- , the municipal park being as important to us as the stage.
If you are interested in the 2008 laboratório [Performance e Tecnologias Interativas] here is a modest documentation: http://interaktionslabor.de/lab08/index.htm > workshop i enjoyed the first version of Cynthia's posting where she explained the creative "l' archive recombinante" she was generating after "Layered Histories: the Wandering Bible of Marseilles". The limitations of recording or documenting interactional digital art and performance works are pretty much expected, and thus inspire various kinds of fantastical 'solutions.' Some may indeed also be mundane, like make up redressing parts of the stuff that could not be filmed or sound-recorded because of bad lighting conditions etc. When i put up a film excerpt from a performance, into the public domain, i try not to use footage from the actual performance, but only specials we shoot under different light in the studio. Of course often we don't have the right lights for these shoots either, when we have combine lighting design for the live performers with projection design for the digital images/3d worlds. with Cynthia's last post, i cannot help wondering (and differing) what is imagined here and where this will be the case/place, who will have these high end capturing technologies at their finger tips? I sense that this month's discussion is also about unquestioned archival "privileges," if we read Ricardo and what he says about the discussion here often being perceivable "as mainly North-Western cultures/societies centered, not in the scope maybe but in the way of understanding other people's contexts." with regards Johannes Birringer ________________________________________ From: empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Cynthia Beth Rubin [...@cbrubin.net] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:14 AM To: soft_skinned_space Subject: [-empyre-] The archive Melinda and all: In my previous post I used the term "fake" to describe recreated elements in the documentation of an inter-active work. I was referring to compensating for poor documentation which is the result of the quality of video recordings. In a very few years we will have video cameras which easily capture intense color in dim light, which simulate the instant adjustment that our eyes make as we shift our focus from one kind of light to another. We will have sound recorders that can replicate the complexity of stereo sound bouncing against walls and back again and mixing subtlety in the space (of course by then stereo will be distant memory). We will have 3D cameras which capture the spatial relationship of audience to installation, or performer to projection (if those distinctions exist then). Are distortions which are the result of the technological limitations of our time acceptable as the standard of documentation? Is there something more pure about misrepresentation by machine? best wishes, Cynthia B Rubin http://CBRubin.net _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
