2 screens were positioned in a right angle on the second day screening evening. It was used twice: for Sam James’ and Gretel Taylor’s works. Sam uses 2 images side by side in each screen which makes it 4 frames within the space, where performers are jumping from real to 3D sets through editing transitions, which I liked, allowing each frame to rotate and made me think about a Rubik’s cube, like the screen surface hides other facets… I was wondering why the work wasn’t presented for 4 screens? with a possibility for audience to maybe enter a space or walk around it?
After listening to the paper of Physical TV, promising an interesting interaction and use of Second Life (SL=3d world on internet) with real space and dancers, I was disappointed for several reasons. First, to see that SL was just used as a set (projected behind the dancers, like in ancient theater painted flat backdrop but, yes, changing thanks to the animation), second that there wasn’t possibility for audience to be online, third the use of narrative as a need for linking real to virtual (in the tradition of Disney cartoon!). On the other side, I was impressed by the programming of the SL avatars’ gestures, obviously they had a bigger range of movements than usual avatars, mirroring the movements of the real dancers. But I couldn’t stop wondering for which purpose? I will write more about SL in further posts in the Networked Performance section of the blog, as I am interested to see how platforms on internet can be used for active performance.
Maybe I missed a possibility of extending the dialogue/questioning during SEAM about the interests people have in using virtual world(s), mixing real and virtual bodies. What can be the interactions of these bodies as performers but also with proximal and online audience? What is the leap in screendance between 1 screen, multiscreens, screens creating fixed/movable spaces acknowledging depth of the projections? How do content and form(s) interact, grow together or not?