net art, video, performance

Annie Abrahams

Networked Conversations

unnamedImage courtesy of the Third Space Network

After Videofreex and Kit Galloway and before Gene Youngblood I’ll be Randall Packer‘s third guest in the Networked Conversations series.

Saturday May 13th 6pm – 7pm Paris time. (Find your local time here.)

To participate you should go to the Third Space Network.
https://connect.ntu.edu.sg/thirdspacenetwork/
Select “Guest,” type your name, and “Enter Room.”

Networked Conversations is a series of live, online interviews and discussions hosted by Randall Packer. The series features media artists, curators, writers, and activists exploring a broad range of social, political and aesthetic topics at the intersection of net culture. Networked Conversations collapses geographical and cultural boundaries via participatory Internet chat: free & open & accessible from anywhere in the world.
For more information visit:
http://www.thirdspacenetwork.com/

mutant

labise

07_collapsing_abrahams_kiss_2931646074_crop

Advertisements

Filed under: Interview, Of interest, , , , , ,

empathy and intimacy in networked performances

propinquity, cross-reality, tele-presence, synaesthesia, ideasthesia

After reading Frans de Waal’s book on The Bonobo and the Athesist, I wondered if it would help me to better understand what is happening in networked webcam performance thinking about it in terms of empathy. So I wrote a status :

Would “empathy” be a word to describe what is needed (put at stake) in networked webcam performances?
The discussion this triggered made me realise a lot had happened since we organised the CyPosium in 2012. There seems to be a very lively bunch of people, with new approaches and ways of thinking, working in this field.

Participants :
Suzon FuksWaterwheel platform
Daniel Pinhero and Lisa Parra of LAND project
Helen Varley JamiesonUpstage platform
Ienke Kastelein artist – performer
Martina Ruhsam performer – choreographer
Michael Baird musician
Roger Mills director of ethernet orchestra
Randall Packer of postREALITY.tv
Sara Malinarich from the Intact project
Jason Crouch of Contact Manchester
Jesse Ricke of CultureHub New York.

I screencaptured the whole thread and post it here as 12 .jpg’s. (interesting links to videos, discussions, academic approaches and practice)

FirefoxScreenSnapz001

jpg1

FirefoxScreenSnapz002

jpg2

FirefoxScreenSnapz003

jpg3

FirefoxScreenSnapz004

jpg4

FirefoxScreenSnapz005

jpg5

FirefoxScreenSnapz006

jpg6

FirefoxScreenSnapz007

jpg7

FirefoxScreenSnapz008

jpg8

FirefoxScreenSnapz009

jpg9

FirefoxScreenSnapz010

jpg10

FirefoxScreenSnapz011

jpg11

FirefoxScreenSnapz012b

jpg12

After the discussion we started a closed facebook group. If you are interested, please ask to join us, you are very welcome.

The propinquity effect is the tendency for people to form friendships or romantic relationships with those whom they encounter often, forming a bond between subject and friend. Feeling close in networked performance might depend on “the percieved feedback”.

The public can’t be an object/subject for empathy, there are too many different people inside it – empathic skills projected on a public easily become manipulative, become something else.

Physical distance between the persons performing and also between them and the persons watching does allow for intimacy in a very special way. Maybe the intimacy is even connected to a shared sense of awkwardness that the situation implies.

Empathy is a quality, a capacity of one person (as is intelligence, sensibility), not something between persons / it is the capacity “a receptiveness to the rhythms, energy, utterances of the other person” – it is a prerequisite for intimacy.

Rather than empathy it’s about a process of increasing synaesthesia.

What telepresents CAN NOT be present, but we cling stubbornly to this utopia. (Jorge Ruiz Abanades)

Maybe one day there will be another CyPosium …

Filed under: performance, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Networked proximities

“…  Effectively, an ambiguous play between hiding and revealing, simulation and authenticity, and intimacy and voyeurism runs through the artistic practices that emerge from digital networks. In this respect, attention must be drawn to Annie Abrahams’ body of performance work in which ‘communication’ and ‘intimacy’, in their myriad variations, become ‘problems’ in the Deleuzian sense of the term (Deleuze, 1990: 56)...”

from Networked Proximities Artcle for ISEA 2011 Istanbul by Margarida Carvalho

“This ar­ti­cle un­der­takes a crit­i­cal re­flec­tion on ex­per­i­ments with au­di­ence par­tic­i­pa­tion in artis­tic prac­tices in­volv­ing net­worked per­for­mance and cy­ber­for­mance. The per­for­ma­tiv­ity of we­b­cam­ming and, in a more gen­eral sense, the pre­sen­ta­tion of the self and par­tic­i­pa­tion in dig­i­tal net­works are con­sid­ered in the con­text of the cur­rent in­ten­si­fi­ca­tion of self-sur­veil­lance and par­tic­i­pa­tory sur­veil­lance on so­cial net­works.”

http://isea2011.sabanciuniv.edu/paper/networked-proximities

Margarida Carvalho holds a BA and a MA in Communication Sciences by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of the New University of Lisbon (FCSH/UNL). She has been a faculty member at the School of Communication and Media Studies (Lisbon Polytechnic Institute) since 1998 where she currently lectures the courses of “Art and Communication” and “Semiology”.

Filed under: Articles / Texts, , , , , , ,

Exercises in remote collaboration – Huis Clos / No Exit – (or, “how cyberformance reveals intimacy”)

8

by Annie Abrahams for ISEA 2011 Istanbul

In 2009 I started the artistic research project Huis Clos / No Exit. In this project I use a specially developed interface to unite several people remotely in a shared performance space that becomes subsequently both a laboratory and a playground. The performance experiences using this interface, suggest that today’s intimacy is no longer revealed through private images but through behaviour captured in real time interactions.

Nowadays, people use webcams to film themselves and to express their ideas and feelings to the unknown other that will look at their videoblog. People rarely use their web- or phonecam to talk to someone else. The use of Skype is either very business like or restricted to family members. In Internet applications as Chatroulette people rarely exchange more than a glance. What they look for is their alter ego or an opportunity.
In her book  “Alone Together” Sherry Turkle [1] describes how we hide more and more behind technology, how intimate communications start being something to avoid rather than to look for, how smartphones help us to flee our fear for the other, how we learn to control our relations via interfaces and how we are adapting our behaviour to this new situation.
Facebook teaches us how to simulate intimacy, how to make relations easy, clean, and without danger.  At the same time these relations also become superficial and makes us ask: Who are we when we don’t perform? Why can’t we show our vulnerable, messy sides? Why can’t I be boring and cherish solitude anymore?
In a society where authenticy and privacy become endangered it is important to find ways to access our vulnerabilities and doubts, to make them public, to cherish our messy side, to make place for the beast in the beauty, to go back to reality, to claim the human.

In 1998 I worked with at least 8 other French artists, I never met, on a collaborative website called lieudit.org . The site and the collective died in 2000 but I still have very nice memories of for instance our IRC rendez-vous during the launches of the virtual exhibitions we organised. Collaborating in a shared website was very stimulating, but in the end we couldn’t find a common goal to make us negotiate better our differences and so we split up. It was very frustrating to learn that behind our machines we couldn’t overcome these political and philosophical and emotional differences, that problems were exaggerated and stayed insurmountable.

This was the first time I noticed that collaboration using machine wasn’t easier, maybe not more difficult either, but different from ordinary face to face communication. Later experiences with online collaborative creation interfaces as for instance Furtherfield’s VisistorsStudio confirmed this.

So when in the early 2000 people started talking, dreaming and glorifying the advantages of Internet collaborations, I was very doubtful and somewhat vexed and decided to start thinking about how to use the recently developed streaming interface of panoplie.org for working on these problems. (1)

In telematic performances intimacy is not there where you think it is. The Big Kiss performed with Mark River (of MTAA) in New York in 2008 [2]  might have looked as an intimate performance, but in fact it was closer to a “drawing à deux” session than to a real kiss. (even if it did awake intimate feelings as drawing on paper of a kiss might have done too). In the telematic performance “One the puppet of the other” with Nicolas Frespech (Paris 2007) [3], we felt most intimate, most close together when we didn’t exchange, when we were waiting, when nothing happened.

In 2008 I started Huis Clos / No Exit :  A networked performance series investigating collaboration  at a distance – the project was also about relational dynamics in a dispersed group. [4]  With an interface developed by Clément Charmet (panoplie.org) and Estelle Senay (x-réseaux – Théâtre Paris Villette) I could unite the images and sounds of the webcams of up to 6 participating performers in a mosaic. The physically separated performers could share borders and interaction surfaces in a common virtual space and become co-responsible for the mosaic image projected in front of the public during performances. At all times they had this same mosaic image on their screen.

A first experiment took place in November 2008 in the International Laboratory Interactive digital media on stage organized by NU2’s in L’Animal a l’Esquena, in Celrà, Spain. In one of the tests I asked three performers to execute a protocol that stated that, before leaving the performance interface they were to compliment the others after having insulted them. It was strange and beautiful to see how they couldn’t stop complimenting and saying nice things to another. Later I became more and more aware of how the performance interface, besides allowing observation of behaviour in collaboration and auto-organisation, can also reveal private, intimate behaviour to the public. The cyberperformers are so occupied by their interactions, that they don’t have time to negotiate their image as they mostly do on the Internet.

I talked about machine-mediated  revelation of intimacy in an interview with Maria Chatzichristodoulou published in Digimag in Oct 2010. [5]

I always look for situations that make any attempt at escaping from exposure impossible. In general I do not rehearse my pieces. If this is necessary –for instance, due to technical reasons­– I write new protocols for the final performance. I try to find ways to penetrate the other performer –just for a second I want them to expose themselves to me (and to our observers) in an action, or a response, that is out of their control. I want them to unveil something they usually hide or only disclose in situations of complete trust, of complete intimacy. I want to know how they function, not by them telling me, but by me almost forcing them to reveal an instance of their ‘hidden code’ in public. I want us to go beyond self-representation and the control that this requires. Am I really forcing them to do this?… No I am not. What happens is that the situation in itself –that is, the telematic performance interface, the protocols, the flaws in the streaming connections– rewrites the conditions of communication in a way that makes this revelation possible, if not inevitable.”

Because I think we need to counterbalance the tendencies to make our Internet-mediated relations cleaner, faster and more and more secure I started paraphrasing Rancière “The real needs to be trapped in order to be available for thought”. [6] (2)

Notes

(1) From 2006 – 2009 I organised with panoplie.org the Breaking Solitude and later the Double Bind webperformance series . While they started out as performances around the idea of the internet as a public space of solitude they became more and more involved with experimenting “different ways of being together” What can we share, what do we share, how are we interacting and what is this technology doing to us? http://aaaliasing.net/2008.panoplie.org/#//DoubleBind

(2) Because the Huis Clos / No Exit interface makes people film their own image, a collaborative cyberformance using it can also be staged as a live production of  an autonomous video, available for reflexion. http://bram.org/huisclos/toutvabien/indexang.html

References

[1] Sherry Turkle, “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other” (New York: Basic Books, 2011).

[2] Annie Abrahams, “The Big Kiss”, 2008, http://www.bram.org/toucher/TBK.html (accessed September 7, 2011).

[3] Annie Abrahams, Nicolas Frespech, “One the puppet of the Other”, 2007, http://www.bram.org/confront/sphere/indexeng.html (accessed September 7, 2011).

[4] Annie Abrahams, “Huis Clos / No Exit”,  2009, http://bram.org/huisclos/indexang.html (accessed September 7, 2011).

[5] Maria Chatzichristodoulou, “Annie Abrahams, Allergic to utopias”, Digimag 58 October 2010, http://www.digicult.it/digimag/issue-058/annie-abrahams-allergic-to-utopias/ (accessed August 30, 2016).

[6] Rancière Jacques, Le Partage du sensible. Esthétique et politique (Paris: La Fabrique, 2000)

Panel : Intimate TV: Webcamming & Social Life-logging In the Surveillant-Sousveillant Space.
Chair: Paula Roush, Maria Lusitano
Presenters: Annie Abrahams, Margarida Carvalho, Cinzia Cremona, Eunice Gonçalves Duarte, Helen Varley Jamieson
Date: Sunday, 18 September, 2011 (13:00 – 14:30)
Location: Sabanci Center,  Room 3, Levent

Filed under: Articles / Texts, , , , , , , , , ,

ISEA2011 Intimate TV etc.

Panel Intimate TV: Webcamming & Social Life-logging In the Surveillant-Sousveillant Space

Chair: Paula Roush, Maria Lusitano
Presenters: Annie Abrahams, Margarida Carvalho, Cinzia Cremona, Eunice Gonçalves Duarte, Helen Varley Jamieson

Date: Sunday, 18 September, 2011 (13:00 – 14:30)
Location: Sabanci Center,  Room 3, Levent
Report by RadioCona

Annie Abrahams’s presents: Exercises in remote collaboration – Huis Clos / No Exit – (or, “how cyberformance reveals intimacy”).
(My presence at the ISEA 2011 is made possible by the Roberto Cimetta Fund)

Panel SENSORIUM: Interdisciplinary Practices of Embodiment and Technology

Chair: Janis Jefferies
Presenters: Ghislaine Boddington, Maria Chatzichristodoulou, Anna Dumitriu

Date: Sunday, 18 September, 2011 (09:00 – 10:30)
Location: Sabanci Center,  Room 1, Levent

Maria Chatzichristodoulou presents: Annie Abrahams’s Experiments in Intimacy

Panel: 6×6/36 : An Artists Book/Exhibition project

Chair: Cyril Thomas
Presenters: Jean-Luc Soret, Clarisse Bardiot, Annick Bureaud

Date: Wednesday, 14 September, 2011 (13:00 – 14:30)
Location: Sabanci Center, Room 3, Levent

At ISEA 2011 in Istanbul, the French-based Collectif NUNC (Clarisse Bardiot, Annick Bureaud, Jean-Luc Soret and Cyril Thomas) is launching the first notebook in the 6 X 6 / 36 series on the theme of mobility.

The six participating artists are : Annie Abrahams, Beatriz da Costa, Nicolas Frespech, Antti Laitinen, Albertine Meunier, Servovalve.

Filed under: Conference / lecture, , , , ,

Annie Abrahams’s Experiments in Intimacy

Gender Forum. An Internet Journal for Gender Studies

Issue 31 2010
Gender and Performance
Theatre / Dance / Technology

# Detailed Table of Contents
# Editorial (by Guest Editor Anna Furse): Gender and Performance. Theatre/Dance/Technology
# Deirdre Osborne and Mojisola Adebayo: Missing in Action. Fathers Making a Quick Exit in Mojisola Adebayo’s Muhammed Ali and Me
# Katharine E. Low: Risk Taking in Sexual Health Communication and Applied Theatre Practice: What Can Happen?
# Jane Bacon: Sitting / Walking / Practice. Reflections on a Woman’s Creative Process
# Maria Chatzichristodoulou [aka Maria X]: Annie Abrahams’s Experiments in Intimacy
# Anna Furse: Don Juan. Who? / Don Juan.Kdo? From Cyber Space to Theatre Space

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Articles / Texts, , , ,

Upcoming

* Unaussprechbarlich 10/11 16h  Frauen-Theater-Festival Theater Antagon, Frankfurt.
*1/12 19h30 Distant Feeling(s)#4 – online.
* 4-9/12 Qu(o)i <=> agence <=> Quand Résidence Labo NRV Subsistances, Lyon.

* 29/03 15h30 Online En-semble – Entanglement Training with Antye Greie, Helen Varley Jamieson, Soyung Lee, Hương Ngô, Daniel Pinheiro and Igor Stromajer, Art of the Networked Practice symposium, School of Art, Design & Media, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
* April, Residency in Künstlerhaus Villa Waldberta, Feldafing, Germany.

Find :

Join 60 other followers

Flickr bram.org


Annie Abrahams
%d bloggers like this: