On 03/04/2008, Marcel Wierckx <Marcel_at_lownorth.nl> wrote:
>
>
> ah, but it's a matter of trust that the something that happened is a
> result of some kind of effort on the part of the performer. So yes, it's
> about the potential that you're being lied to and that there's simply no way
> to tell for sure. Not that I think that laptop performers do this
> intentionally, but simply the fact that the potential for deceit is there I
> feel is problematic for laptop performance (Cascone describes this much more
> elegantly than I ever could).
I know this idea of deceit it laptop performance is a generally accepted one
(and enjoyed Kim's papers) ... but is it actually real?
Like probably most here I see a fair amount of laptop-based performances and
I don't think I'm alone in tending to try to sneak a peek at the screen or
position myself on a balcony to look at the performer's hands.
I think that in nearly all cases you can get a very good idea about what
kind of activity is actually going on by simply looking at the performer
move. People do "lie", for example in passionately tweaking a single
stomp-box on a send and trying to imply they are controlling the whole piece
through it, triggering the return of beats by throwing a fist in the air
while the laptop takes care of the whole track structure, but is the kind of
person who's so passionate about what goes on in performance that he's
inclined to voice his opinion on a public forum like this one actually ever
really fooled?
We could say the general lay audience doesn't notice but if that's true
(which I wonder about) I think that means they may simply not care and be
there just to dance and/or listen. Has anybody ever actually interviewed
audience members about the performances they saw/heard as they leave a club?
I'd like to suggest actual research into this instead of more or less
blindly accepting the idea.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Fri Apr 04 2008 - 13:57:30 BST