interactivity
February 24th, 2010We try so hard to create the illusion of interactivity, to an extent that it becomes rather trivial. So much live electronic music exists simply to boast the intimacy of its interactions. These pieces hunger for the gawks and awes of an audience, entranced by the exhibition of techno-magistracy at hand. But stepping back from these copulative musings, one can’t help but identify the shallowness of this act, or at least yearn for something more.
To me, this is a problem of intent, or content for that matter.
When content becomes purely about interactivity the audience is further distanced from the performance. It’s at this point that the perception of a piece is masked in irrelevance.
I guess its important for my sake to not allow interactivity to soak into the content of a piece. I’d hope that my work be guided by something else; narrative, intuition – intent, really, not the esoteric and problematic relationships between performer and instrument. If anything I would hope to distract the audience from this relationship, to allow for a pure consumption of a piece. Because the buzz-word in composition of the last 20 years has been “gesture”, yet this term denotes, at best a lone point of singularity. Perceptually, I don’t find this interesting, and rather a distraction in restraint.
At my fault, I enjoy being barraged with a mass of perceptual activity at once, allowing free associations to take place. A piece with an x + y = z formula is unimaginative and should not be considered true interactivity. For once the audience grasps the connection the output is rendered cliche and predictable. So many pieces work on the basis of this function, and though their aesthetics may be captivating x + y = z for the sake of it doesn’t cut it for me.
somethingsomethingsomethingsomething
I am thinking about this, while I am making water wiggle with my sound exciters.
-david