Just found this really good website whilst doing a bit of research; it's called The Presence Project.
I am only about half way through looking at it but thought that it might also be useful to some of you (esp Harriet and Lena).
I found this quote on part of the website,
Steve Dixon
(...) Reduced to its essence, presence is about interest and command of attention, not space or liveness. (...) Let us consider a hypothetical live performer standing next to an exactly life-size, recorded, two-dimensional projection of herself (...). If both figures are still and neutral, one might agree that the live performer has more presence (by virtue her solidity, her liveness). But once either of the figures engages in activity (including concentrated thought) it will pull focus to it, gain attention, and assert its presence over the other. When both become active, the one we watch more (our attention will always flit between them), the one with the most presence, is the one engaged in what we find personally the more interesting or emotive activity. In this sense, presence in relation to audience engagement and attention is dependent on the compulsion of the audiovisual activity, not on liveness or corporeal three-dimensionality.' (Dixon, 2007: 132)
I think that this is especially applicable to my workshop as we were conversing with projections of ourselves; and as Doug pointed out during Lena's performance, we all watched the projection more than we did the live Lena. Why is this? Is it because we are now more practised in viewing a 2D image? It isn't as if we could argue that the quality of the image was entrancing. It was a poor quality image, that was faint because there was too much light in the room!?!
I also find it interesting that Dixon separates presence and liveness. I can't separate the two at all in my head, but can really see what the quote is getting at. Still leaves me begging the question of how to define liveness... made even more difficult if presence is taken out of the equation!
Let me know any thoughts!
7 comments:
hey lady i sent this link to you in the last assessment although we were so snowed under it was probably lost- and good for me to look at again too
its got fantastic stuff on it!!
xxx
Doh!
Definitely a cool site! Thanks for posting. I have no insightful comments at the moment. Have just emerged from deep thinking of my own. Will try to have an epiphany later.
hey
am really pleased you mentioned steve dixon as i had forgotten about his book 'digital performance' i bought a while ago- must show it to you next week. had been using it in the relationship between the nature of photography and technology, barthes/ auslander/ baudrillard etc. theres a nice bit talking about a piece by paul sermon in 'a body of water' using a fine spray of water as a projection surface i liked.
this i found in the book- The chameleon group which may interest you live and mediated selves talking to each other;
http://www.robat.scl.net/content/PaiPres/presencesite/html/dixchamel.html
x
blimey- can't believe i recommended that YOU should read yet more theory
but the web link has PICTURES so 'spose its ok....haha
x
Harriet - That sounds like a great book! I'll deffinitly have to get my hands on it. Haven't checked out the website but will do asap. I think I need more theory at the moment am a bit stuck on the essay side of stuff! I have decided to set up liveness and mediatization in a binary opposition and then deconstruct it... I think that this makes the most sense?? Ahhh!
Lena - Looking forward to your insightful comments! Glad you liked the website.
xx
hey lady
just found this blog;
http://umintermediai501.blogspot.com/2008/01/hiding-in-woods-ina-blom.html
may be of interest- good links at bottom of it
x
Post a Comment