may be the audiecne should not seat in the public, but be on stage with us, in our chaos of ideas and networks, may be they have to support the system running, like a labor.
boris groys suggested in his lecture that the system will collapse if we will not support it anymore. so may be the whole performance should be the metaphor of this saying. if we install some weird mechanisms that are connected to each other and the audience have to pull it or push it, make it work. even with the water, like if we offer them a glas of water- there could be the water system running made very simple and cheap. so that everything is connected to everything in a weird crazy way.
it would be great if the audience could in certain moment control the system, but if they will not comunicate this to each other -the control will be chaotic and neurotic, so the water might come form somewhere else where you don't know from where. or anything else can drop from the ceiling , or some fluid or paint will come out if somebody will touch the sensor, or the wind will blow. kind of effects. may be we can structure the audience with the rules. some of the can control the lights of the performance, some of them the sound, some of the the video. they can stop it or let it continue. and the scenes will be constructed out of videos, photos texts or our actions, like Foucault text or take it easy scene, or we can make some weird dance scenes as well, and read texts or tell personal stories.
may be creating such a system will allow us to put everything in what we want, no matter about the order of it, as we also do not have the order, everything is horizontal equally important. but we can think about the concrete strategies of control. may be we can think of some provocations. and give the audience the tools to not agree on something. to create a conflict.
to be continued.....
interesting ideas! i think pragmatically its very ambitous. could easily fall apart into not working at all.. which i don't find interesting. that complete collapse thing (andreas finds it interesting. i wil say again: i do NOT!)...
ReplyDeletebut so for me i immediately start thinking of ways that it could be more 'insured' to pretty much work.
for instance that at each station are these elaborate lists of tasks in order for the show, and we are busy during the performance quickly running around to different stations at certian moments to make sure that the audience person is ready for the next task on their list..
i like this idea you are outlining..
however i think we are then asking them to do the labor of the show.
there r responsbilities and politics there. what do we offer in return for that?
and how are we giving them access to something else then simply labor (for our vision)?
i think we ought to be cautious to look for literalist metaphors.
when groys mentions that without people the system would fall apart.. we have to first think about this
is this true?
there are arguments to be made that it is NOT true. i can explain later.
its interesting yes. but is it ultimately SO TRUE that we ought to make a kind of spectacle of it. And if so, do we need to literalize it like this?
there may be other ways to bring this forward. ONLY because again, in getting people to be the workers on stage, we are 1. dis-respecting the actual workers in theater who do this in fact 2. asking them to participate in labor to which they are not trained nor were really aiming to begin with to do
so what is the advantage in THAT direct engagement?
Nonetheless, i think its very interesting indeed!!
but lets continue to think about how this network can function
or where it becomes revealed.... and how...