#maatp

[digitalderives]

Going Viral

Seminars were replaced this week with a three day ‘intensive’ where the focus was upon viral phenomena. During the intensive we interrogated the notion of ‘going viral’ by looking at successful videos and stories, then making our own in response. The course was split into four groups and there was a friendly rivalry set up between us – who could get the most hits for their response in one day.

As the group I was a part of began brainstorming ‘what makes successful viral videos’ we started to notice trends in recent popular online phenomena.

Firstly, something that shows a bit of skill, talent, or is plain ridiculous usually gets a good response. Not the most extreme example, but the 2007 ‘Daft Hands- Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger’ video http://youtu.be/K2cYWfq--Nw  has received over 59,260,319 views on YouTube, and is still receiving comments such as “this would've taken forever. This is so clever. WATCH THIS!” seven years later.

Secondly, take the audience on an emotional journey, whether that is tear-jerking or heart swelling - people respond well to a clear emotional narrative. The video of 29 year old Sloan Churman, a woman deaf since birth hearing her own voice for the first time with the help of hearing implants has received over 21,322,106 views, since it was uploaded in 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA. Arguably the popularity of the video stems from people’s enjoyment in witnessing, or even sharing, this woman’s life changing experience. And when she cries, it provokes the viewer’s empathy and often leads to similar responses of happiness for her, it is somewhat cathartic.

Thirdly, videos that are of a campaign – something the viewer can enjoy in the first instance, learn about, and even follow up later. Take the 2006 ‘Free Hugs Campaign’ http://youtu.be/vr3x_RRJdd4, which now with over 75,792,753 views – the video tells the story of a man’s quest to reach out and hug as many strangers as possible. The video is not heavily preachy or moralistic, and there have been many real life replications ever since (when I fist stepped foot in Times Square in 2011 I was created by a handsome man offering free hugs, on Valentine’s Day no less!) It also helps that it is underscored with some soppy mid 2000s alt rock.

After some online research I have found there are many responses, articles and academic pieces written behind the ‘science’ of going viral, where I picked up a few more important points. Apparently, we were starting at a disadvantage by performing our exercise on a Friday – it seems Monday and Tuesday are prime days for stories and videos to first catch attention as people browse the web whilst at work, and then there is the rest of the working week to catch momentum. Weekends are ‘speed bumps’ that slow down progress as your audience is more likely to be out of office. (https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/10-ways-to-make-your-video-go-viral-d19d9b9465de)

Looking at the ‘bigger picture’ is important – racking up lots of views on a videos YouTube page is all well and good, but if people aren’t sharing it (via social media) then  a standstill is very close on the horizon. The nature of social media currently is that people have gotten lazy – with a ‘if you haven’t sent me the link, why would I search for it?’ attitude. (http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ebuzzing-partner-zone/making-your-video-go-viral-the-seven-golden-rules)

[digitalderives]

Global Village

Although it sounds like some sort of 21st century buzzword that’s merely bandied around by telecommunications, marketing and sales companies, the term ‘Global Village’ actually has a much more theoretical meaning, one that resonates significantly with our daily lives and experiences of interaction. The term originates with Marshall McLuhan in his books The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962) and Understanding Media (1964). Writing over 50 years ago McLuhan described a means of communicating via technology where the radio and telephone would become our ears, and the television and computer our eyes, connecting people over distances further reaching than their physical ability. McLuhan explained that these technologies would connect people across the globe in such a way that the world would become one mass connected pan-continental village.

McLuhan predicted an ‘extension of consciousness’ where information is shared across electrical and technological systems in such an intricate, constant and normalized way – arguably McLuhan predicted the internet culture of the modern day. The ‘world wide web’ allows individuals and communities across the world to communicate instantly, with loved ones or perfect strangers. Physical distance, it seems, is no longer a barrier so long as you have an internet connection.

 I think that the advent of technology, particularly online, has created a sense of this ‘global village’. I have friends who live in far flung places of the world who I communicate more frequently with than those who live in the same city. I have friendships that have lasted over distances because we are able to connect regularly online and continue a sense of shared experience and community. However, I also find that this inter-connectivity makes the unknown or unconnected seem captivatingly different. Cultures that have not embraced digital technology have it imposed upon them, as documentary crews and journalists arrive to create a web-series to educate the rest of us. Almost like there is a sense of entitlement. Or rather, the global village is not optional, which is a wee bit frightening if you think about it.

   (Oh, and it also the name of a mega mall shopping complex, of course)

[digitalderives]

We can imagine space without objects but can we imagine objects without space?

Our recent seminar addressed the last point of my badly drawn triangle (see earlier post) – Space. Beginning with a discussion around that tricky question “what is space?” Seems easy enough, but it’s more like opening a can of worms of confusion and inarticulacy. Space, it just is. Space is everything. Space is a realm, a three-dimensional expanse. Space is the form of all possible perception (Kant). And, what I’d not thought of before, space isn’t just above us, or even around us, it is infinity. Basically, it’s a pretty whacking great topic to start getting your head around and having interesting conversations about.

So let’s narrow it down. What is space to me - an artist, theatre and performance maker? It is the material that allows us to use all other materials. I think when devising performance space cannot, or should not, be ignored. Now, I’m not a particularly scenographical mind, but even as the earliest performative images or ideas take some shape I am imagining that shape within space, they don’t exist in a vacuum. Imagining, or rather understanding the space is the groundwork for realizing a piece.

[digitalderives]

The use of screens, digital and video technology in performance is not new. The Wooster Group (NYC) has been playing with this technology for 30years. Katie Mitchell has been at it for about 10.

I find Mitchell’s interesting because of the way she uses video imagery – to fragment the stage picture, combining the video output with the live creation of the images – as she says “I am artificially giving you the impression of a dreamlike landscape”. Her logic, part of the dramaturgy, is that this way she reflects a more real representation of how her mind works, it picks up pieces of information from the many things happening in the world around us -> real life doesn’t given us a straight forward narrative, there are always fragments and distractions. I’d agree that this is more like how most of our minds work – piecing together what we see here and there. However, the aesthetic of her work can be quite overwhelmed by the physical presence of the technology and “ugly cameras”. I wonder how you could balance the showing of the workings, the making of, the live creation, with an aesthetically pleasing stage picture.

[digitalderives]

'Conventional Theatre' is a dead term.

[digitalderives]

if we believe it is live - is it live?

Douglas O'Connell

09/05/14

[digitalderives]

‘Liveness’ and ‘the Live Event’ are terms which I have found crop up more and more in my conversations around performance, and the making of performance. To me the reason I make work in the theatrical sphere (rather than say film or television) is because I am interested in the relationships between the individuals who are there – performers, audiences, participators (call them what you will, the list could go on!) The presence [another tricky term to be unpicked at a  later date] of those people is what interests me – the sharing of an experience; the experience of interaction; the interaction of individuals. I believe it is Auslander (must double check) that said the Live Event is where, in the collective culture, there is the opportunity to collide together, to share – and that is the heart of the art/the event. For example, the revelers sharing a big summer festival experience may enjoy the music, but it’s the event itself which draws them in, the opportunity to experience a new mini society, engaging in its own rules and revelations. This relates to Time in the sense that the ‘liveness’ of the event is often correlated to the ephemeralness of the event – that liveness exists in the immediate time only.  

[digitalderives]

In theatre (performance) there is an ephemeral time, moments of time are challenged and challenging.

Performance happens in the moment, the time in which you come across it.

So then, what implications does this have for liveness?