Hyperessay : Online Symposium

“It transforms the screen into a live encounter, in the sense it joins the space of the live performance and the audience, making them co-performers.” – Maria Chatzichristodoulou

Online art gives you democracy, because everyone has access to the internet and because of the limitless possibilities that computers give us, it gives everyone a level playing ground. It gives separate artists the ability to come together and create something simultaneously and this adds value to an otherwise flat piece of art that stays on a digital screen.

“There is a notion of freedom and expression. They are able to express whatever they want and wherever they are.” 

Throughout the online symposium there were evident lag and latency problems – reinforced by the constant interruptions by Dr. Randall Packer informing the audience to be patient about the technical issues that they were facing. Such is natural because of the nature of the online platform, even if it is unintended. However I would argue that this even adds value to the online performance, because this flaw is what makes the live art feel “real” and live. Imperfection gives the art a more natural feel instead of refined/polished, perfect art, making it feel more down-to-earth where nothing is rehearsed. The raw vibe of the art piece is what makes the art feel true.

With regards to the live Q and A

The live question and answer portion of the symposium allowed for audiences to have a more direct and wholesome feel of the artists answering questions. However, whether or not it was purposeful to the artpiece itself is another question.

In my opinion, regardless of the presence of audience comments, the artpiece would have gone the same way and the outcome or process of the art would not have changed. In this sense, the audience are not co-participants because nothing they say or do would have affected the outcome or process of the piece and to me, this takes away value from the art being live. At this point, whether or not the art piece was shown live would not have mattered, because it could have been pre-recorded and nothing would have differed from what the audience saw on their screens. In this sense, the value of the live art.

Also, the artists selectively chose what questions to answer, and even though they try their best to answer all the questions posted to them, it does not change the fact that they are able to select the questions they answer. This ends up removing the personal aspect from the live Q and A because the ability to hide behind a screen and avoid uncomfortable questions is what made digital art lack a feel of intimacy in the first place.

Leeches piece by Robert Sfuentes

This was an impactful piece because of the pain and discomfort involved for the artist. Audiences had to sit through the artist being sucked alive by leeches and this instilled a sense of pain and discomfort in the audience and hence it felt impactful because the audience felt for the artist.

The artist also mentioned sometime in the comments later that the piece was about social media taking life away from us individuals.

However, in my opinion, due to the lack of audience interaction as the piece was being played out, it did not feel like a co-performance. As mentioned above, nothing the audience said or did would have affected the process or outcome of the artpiece itself, and hence the piece may as well have been uploaded as a video. My argument for this would be : Was there a point of coming up with a third space if it is just a platform for live discussion?

Concluding thoughts

“Since the others look at me, his responsibility is incumbent upon me.” – Levinas

“There is an unsaid expectation/responsibility to respond to someone you invited.”

Above are two quotes that speak very true to me; if people made the conscious effort to tune in to your third space art, it becomes your responsibility to respond to them and interact with them.

The third space brings about a very unique characteristic/feature to the art piece. However, it is still dependent on the nature and context of the piece – is this characteristic impactful enough to make a difference in the outcome of the art piece? Does using the third space LIVE actually add value to your performance?

With careful consideration, the use of the third space can lead to some very impactful and creative artworks. However, I personally feel that a lot of the impact of having art in the third space rests on the shoulders of audience interaction, because why else would live art be impactful if not for the moment-to-moment impacts that the audience can have on the art piece?

Leave a Reply