Sometimes I don’t want to think about the demise of humanity and how people are trying to poison me. Sometimes I don’t want to think about what ‘the painting’ means, or wrestle with programming and/or wires to do some cool things. Sometimes I just want to draw comics and read the good things other people have written. Currently on my list are: American Gods, Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates, The Singularity is Near–though this just borders on too serious–which I have paired, and like alternating with The Cyberiad. Then it becomes less heavy. That’s where I’m at right now.

pg. 73
Things that I do not see
when I close my eyes,
drawn crudely.

Evidence of touching to feel comfort,
things that I did not see
when my eyes were closed.

—–

pg. 75
breath —> light : gesture —> voice.

draw to shape sound. The sound is the feedback from my voice. Three/four tension points
-true voice
-feedback “voice”
-physical visuals created (ie lines)
-physical gesture used to create lines/manipulated voice/feedback

An instrument.

Performance requires execution or criteria for execution.

How does gesture effect the voice without supplementary technology?
Will the voice still be [like] a line?

More interested in other people right now.

pgs. 78 – 83 are coved in an earlier post, Shower Thoughts

pg. 85
The animal in the machine
The human – the monkey
The machine – the animal – the sublime – the unknowable beyond

-The animal is at his best when the machine functions properly.
-A healthy mobile body
-The movement of the body to construct the mind
-The animal needs to maintain the machine, but sometimes doesn’t (probably causing psychotic behaviour on a large scale – society out of balance.)
-The animal as a seeking being — that imagines what is possible and tries to do it — is human. The animal in awe of the sublime is human.
-The seeking animal within a functional machine may know more/experience more of the unknowable — the beyond yourself.
-Between the animal and the sublime on that spectrum lives our best self
-The unknowable reveals itself to the seeking animal
-We gained the ability to see the unknowable at the symbolic revolution. An effect of which is also detachment by way of language.
-The ability to analyze the thing insulates us from the thing while in that “mode”.
-Aware of experiences I would normally not be aware of without language but the language creates a buffer around that first contact “feeling”

pg. 86
The machine isn’t just a healthy body. It is the processes of the mind–those that are in place for survival–also functioning properly. The machine also includes your instincts and automatic mental processes.

The animal appreciates the functions of the machine. All the joy of having a stupid monkey brain. Sometimes just the animal being.
Animal being.

I can’t experience everything
I am experiencing all I can
I need to be open, and learn how to be open to new experiences

-Machine functioning
-Animal being
-Human seeking
-Sublime transmitting

I need to know/remember that other people may not be “I” but they are me out “there”, where I stick my arm out.

pg. 88 – 89
Fiction vs. Non-fiction

pg. 90 – 91
We make ourselves relevant by making each other relevant

On March 30th, 2012 TSC performed as part of Reverb, an exhibition event at Bankley Gallery hosted by the MACFA students (of which I am one). Prior to the performance I had asked my peers on the course to record the performance. I let them know that they could film as much or as little of it as they wanted, and also let them know how I was planning on editing the footage together. This is the result (above).

The video itself is downloadable from vimeo (though there is an HD version on youtube, as they allow for a higher file size, but its read-only), and you can also download the sound file from the [free] downloads section of this site. Everything’s under a CC-BY license.

I find it really rewarding when other artists want to expand on the work I create. What contributes to that attitude is the notion that these performances are just me trying to put forward the best possible performance for the version of the work as it is at that time (and I’m speaking for myself there–“I” vs “we”–because I can best express my own thoughts, in my own words, when I’m not trying to democratize them or mediate them to try to encapsulate what Rod and Anton might also think.)

Expanding on that idea: Not in any kind of grandiose way, but I think some ideas are too big, or full of potential, to belong in just one person’s care. And I’m not saying that this performance is ‘a big idea’ or anything like that. These are just some of my thoughts on the free flow of ideas. I think its really arrogant for one person to presume they should be an idea’s sole keeper. There can be so many directions that a single idea might take, one person might not be able to actualize every strand even if they devoted their entire life to it. As far as I’m concerned, this is the only way to move forward when weighted against the disservice and harm that the alternative would suggest. We need evolve our idea of ownership so it doesn’t stunt humanity’s own evolution during this time of increasing technological and creative wonder.

Needless to say I got a very excited email from my friend Mauricio Pauly saying [really excitedly] that its rocked him out of a blockage he’s been having regarding a piece he’s been writing. Its beyond awesome that something I made is useful in that way.

(Skip ahead in the video to 5:14 to see the moment the still above was taken.)

 

(left) This is a picture of the painting as it was exhibited post-performance and for the duration of the exhibit. I had decided that I would make the decision how [and IF !] to represent my work in ‘object’ form only after I had performed (though I had planned for each eventuality.) Right after the performance on the night, I transferred the audio onto my ipod and mounted it along with headphones, so that it was available to the audience immediately. I think this seemingly improptu installation spoke to the improvised nature of the work. On this occasion I decided to leave the canvas stretched, as I had decided to give it away as a gift and it was still stretched during that transaction. I feel that at that point, ownership was transferred and I was able to “let it exist out in the world” absolved of any involvement in transforming it further. In my mind this was the perfect resolution since for me the performance, in all its transience, is the true form of the work, though there is an actual physical object that I’m left to contend with.

This is one of the flyers I designed for the event (above). The text is inspired by a drawing that Cristine Brache made once upon a time.

 

I’ve been tearing into canvases since I started using the projector to augment the experience (It just felt like the natural thing to do). However, just recent I’ve started placing the projector behind the canvas–so now it looks like I’m drawing with light as I break the fibers. After practice Anton drew my attention to the lines thrown across the room. Of course this happens! But it hadn’t occurred to me as I was doing it. Now that I know, I can use it and grow it. Pretty f—ing awesome.

Light potential by Takahashi (A sample from that session)

Rod just saw the title and made me aware of how it sounded. Perhaps not as sexy a post given the title….

Move the drawings to three dimensional space.

Do it with movement and sound.
Possibly by diffusing the sound.
Eliminate the canvas/flat surface [any surface].
Eliminate the physical mark.
Use concat synthesis to create the sounds using gesture.
The natural gesture that would create them on the canvas surface I’m used to (as a starting point from which to build).

Keep breath to light.
Move in space.
Draw with sound to create the drawing.
I’ve built up the experience I wonder if I can do it without the visual output of actual marks.

Collect a library of sounds.
Build a corpus.

For home listening/viewing disconnected from the performance
Record the jit.window output
Record the sounds
Viewer wears headphones and closes eyes, then is placed in front of a projector (maybe just a computer screen is bright enough)
A version of the experience (just like the painting is–just a sample), if one can’t be at a performance, which is the ideal situation.
A translation.

Things I can do:
-Control brightness: the ramp up rate/decay rate
-All white
-Light off or all black
-All red
-Intensity of red based on pitch
-Red splash (currently with a set duration but doesn’t have to be)
-Synth pitch based on voice pitch
-Stutter/strobe (currently can’t control the alternating rate. Currently set at the constant 50 milliseconds)

Things I want to do:
-Illuminate specific area of a canvas (control the brightness & shape of those areas)
-Play back sounds using gestures in space–sounds that those gestures would produce on the canvas. Concat?
-Get my left hand free; not tied to a wiimote. Can do this if I move to gestures.

Extended mind thesis
Extended body

If you can do anything, why do this? –Rod
Anything is possible -me
Not everything is worth doing -my father

What’s worth doing?

I assume I can control [some aspects] of my development–conscious development.

I assume the norm for me is to exist in time and that it moves forward, as far as its perceivable to me. Its not useful in terms of my own development to assume I have no control or to not believe in time, or to believe the most useful things occur outside of time.

f(k) = A
Thinking of myself in terms of Kate Freeborough. (Is that formula kinda right?)
Kate is interested in play without agenda.
I have an agenda.
I do what I do to exercise mixing up information. I think I increase the probability of success by doing it in an unforgiving environment–in front of people, performing, in time (which is unforgiving because there are no ‘take backs’).
Doing it with other people (Anton and Rod) creates a dynamic, stimulating environment that I have to navigate in.  I have to read it and respond.

Its getting easier to hear.

I improvise in that environment.
I set my intention to be aware and to be as fluid as possible so I can learn what I don’t know. I want to be surprised.

Questions to ask Kate:
Do you believe you can do anything?
Do you believe anything is possible?
Is everything you do worth doing?
Do you set an intention before beginning to make?
Do you [always] play without agenda? or is there sometimes ‘game’ involved?
Can you expand on the difference between the two as far as you’re concerned?
Do you consider unpredictability in your closed systems?
If yes:
What’s the role of of unpredictability in your closed systems?