This paper works from Maturana and Varela’s theories
of the autopoietic nature of living systems and Erika Fischer-Lichte’s
application of this theory to performance in order to interrogate the ‘living
system’ which operates within live intermedial performance. The paper focuses
in particular on the ‘system’ used to generate forms of live media performance,
where the performer is also the present activator of onstage elements and, in
turn, interrogates the function of the performer and ‘experiencer’ (Nelson: 2010) in such a system. In doing so,
it posits the notion that the performer operates as a component within the
system, whereas the positioning of the experiencer is a contradictory one; simultaneously
immersed within the intermedial space generated, but external to and excluded
from its system of construction.
Live intermedial performance is a mode of performance
developed through my own practice as research and can be defined as that where
the solo performer is also the activator of a range of ‘technical mediums’ (Elleström
2010: 17) present in the space, which enable her to mix sound, image, object
and text live and in the presence of the experiencers. It can be related in its
form to VJ-ing, live cinema and other modes of live media practices, where
predetermined elements are activated and mixed live through onstage media, though in style and content it differs from much of this work (see
Clip 1 below).
Clip 1: Live
intermedial performance in action.
Footage taken from re-cite (2012)
The ‘system’ of performance operational within this
mode of performance therefore centres on the solo performer/activator
interacting with technical mediums and a range of material, including text,
sound, video and objects, to activate this material in a number of simultaneous
‘modalities’ (Elleström 2010: 15) in order to
produce an intermedial space of merged sound and image, in which the
construction of that space is also a present and vital component. (see Figure 1
below)
Figure 1: The live intermedial space, with the
means of constructing intermediality
clearly visible. Image taken by Matt Taylor from re-cite (2012)
The practice operates as an installation, with
experiencers free to come and go from the performance space and to occupy it as
they wish. Through the presence of the performer/activator and the technical
mediums within this space, they are encouraged to encounter both the activation
of the intermediality and the space generated as a result of this activation (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2: the activation in relation to the
space of intermediality. Image taken from Cover
(2011)
In addition, the intermediality generated emerges from and in
response to each moment of performance. There is no structure, line or
trajectory in place prior to each iteration and within the creation of the
work, I as performer/activator often invite ‘offers’ from the experiencers to
act as prompts for generating intermediality with the materials and technical
mediums available in the space. For instance, a box may be present on stage
into which experiencers place song suggestions written on envelopes, to be
picked up by me during the course of the work. Alternatively, they may be asked to
place slips of paper with words or images in the technical area of the stage to
act as prompts for the generation of intermediality. In all such cases, the
promise is the same; that in some way the contribution offered by the
experiencer alters the developing experience in a way that would not or could
not have been possible without their particular intervention. They are part of
shaping the work; co-creators of the experience.
Despite the offer of a co-authored space through these
conditions and mechanisms, in this paper, I will argue that though live
intermedial practice in its form seems to represent an open and interactive space
for the experiencer, that the system at the heart of this mode of performance,
which is predicated on a looping and continuous interaction between
performer/activator, technical mediums and the intermediality generated, is
ultimately autonomous and self generating. It is therefore one which interrupts
the ‘mutual exchange of perceiving and being-perceived’ (Fischer-Lichte 2008:
73) within the performance space. I will also argue, in relation to theories of
autopoiesis, that with regard to this self-generating system, the experiencer
represents part of the environment which ‘triggers’ changes from the exterior,
rather than ‘determining’ such changes from within the system and ultimately
that the system and the performance itself is determined not by such triggers
but ‘by its own structural properties’ (Hayles 1999: 11).
Maturana and Varela define the ‘autopoietic
organization’ of living systems as ‘continually self-producing’ (1987: 43). They
argue that the components of such a system ‘must be dynamically related in a
network of ongoing interactions’ (43-44) and crucially ‘the system produces
components which make up the network of transformation that produced them’
(44). In this way, they posit, living systems are self-producing or
self-generating; ‘their organization is such that their only product is
themselves, with no separation between producer and product’ (48-49). Also, as
referenced above, N.Katherine Hayles adds in her analysis of autopoietic theory
that in this conception of an autopoietic system,
‘the environment’ in which the system is placed ‘merely triggers changes determined by the system’s own structural
properties’ (1999: 11). Finally, Frijtof Capra notes that autopoietic
systems are ‘autonomous’, meaning that the ‘environment only triggers the
structural changes; it does not specify or direct them’ (2003: 31).
Erika Fischer-Lichte famously applies the notion of an
autopoietic system to performance, specifically defining performance
according to its capacity for autopoiesis and placing the ‘autopoietic feedback
loop’ at the centre of her delineation of what is ‘live’ performance. She
claims that ‘whatever the actors do elicits a response from the spectators,
which impacts on the entire performance’ (2004: 38), through creating a
‘self-referential autopoietic system’ or ‘feedback loop’ (39) between the
performers and spectators. Fischer-Lichte insists that an autopoietic feedback
loop automatically exists within any performance where performers and
spectators are ‘bodily co-present’, rendering it for her, a defining factor of
live performance.
However, in citing the feedback loop in her analysis and
definition of performance, she also specifically connects its application to
the ‘performative turn’ as she describes it in the 1960s when ‘a fundamentally
open, unpredictable process emerged as the defining principle of theatrical
work’ (2004: 39). She goes on to say that ‘a shift in focus occurred from
potentially controlling the system to inducing the specific modes of
autopoiesis’. Fischer-Lichte cites ‘contingency’ as fundamental to this shift,
in that ‘the pivotal role of the audience was not only acknowledged as a
pre-condition for performance, but explicitly invoked as such’ (39).
Such terms could be seen to directly map onto live
intermedial performance. This is indeed work which seems, in its lack of
predetermined form and structure, to be ‘fundamentally open’ and as such,
‘unpredictable’ in its construction and development, fitting the model
proposed. In addition, ‘contingency’ is deliberately induced through the
mechanisms described above, whereby the experiencers offer prompts which direct
the generation of the performance. However, in analysing the operation of the
practice, I have come to the conclusion that the notion of the feedback loop between
performer and experiencer is troubled and problematised specifically by my role
as a component within the present system for generating the performance. Indeed
within this analysis, I identify a boundary between the ‘system’ in which I
operate as performer/activator and the experiencers, who are part of the
‘environment’, beyond the reaches of this looping and self-sufficient system. Furthermore,
I would argue that it is the specific ‘structural properties’ of the system
within which I exist as the performer/activator in a live intermedial iteration
which determine my operation as component within
that system and define the exteriority of the experiencers.
In order to further this point, the structural properties
which I identify as particularly influential on my operation as
performer/activator within the system are listed below, along with the impact (in red) of this property upon my modes of activation:
I am a solo performer, with a number of
different technical mediums to operate and material to manipulate (my focus in performance is and has to be on the choice of
material, technical medium and the act of operation/activation)
Figure 3: the range of technical mediums present within a live intermedial performance
I stand opposite the images I generate in order
to construct/mix them effectively (I have to focus
attention on the screen in order to see what I am mixing and the effects
created, while also simultaneously creating these effects)
Figure 4: the performer/activator positioned opposite the images she manipulates. Image taken by Matt Taylor from re-cite (2012)
In generating sound, operating both the loop pedal and the
sound sampler requires fixed and focused attention on each technical medium,
specifically in terms of timing/rhythm (I need a dual
focus on operating the mediums themselves and listening to the sound generated
to respond to this)
Clip 2: loop pedal montage
The technical area I work in is physically fixed in the space
of performance (Though I am not tied to this area, it
does provide a locus for me within performance, in that I need to be in this
area to generate intermediality and indeed to shift and change it – see Figure
4)
The technical mediums generate looped and repeating images
and sounds (the insistent and sometimes mesmeric nature
of repeating sound and image impacts on me in my continuing construction of the
piece - see Clip 3)
Clip 3: 'trees' sequence from re-cite 2012
The result of these ‘structural properties’ of the live
intermedial system in combination is that the most prevalent influences on my
operation in the moment of performance are twofold; the actions and focus
required to make this system work, as well as the intermediality I have already
generated and which exists in the space, impacting on my further creation. The
performance mode is, through this impact on my operation within it, self-generating in that it loops back to
itself insistently and influences how and what I construct. Equally, there is
something about the web of activation of and response to intermediality which
encloses and utterly occupies my attention within the performance.
Erika Fischer-Lichte argues that the ‘constitutive moment of
performance’ is ‘in the bodily presence of the actors’ which ‘sets the
autopoietic feedback loop in motion’ (2004: 74). On the contrary, I would argue
that within live intermedial practice, the ‘constitutive moment of performance’
lies in my interaction with the technical medium to generate intermediality in
the presence of the experiencers. I acknowledge that this presence shifts the
operation significantly within that moment, but their responses, unless
directly prompted, are not a primary part of the experience for me and rather
the intermediality already generated becomes the main influence on the
development of the work. In this way, though changes can be ‘triggered’ by the
presence of the experiencer and any prompt they offer in the moment of
performance, the operation of the system is determined
by its own structural properties, outlined above.
In considering the feedback loop between performer and
experiencer therefore, in live intermedial
practice, I argue it operates as
follows:
Experiencer
offers a prompt
Performer/activator
receives the prompt and configures what is written with her own ideas about
what she wants to do in the space and how the piece should develop
This
negotiation between performer/activator, prompt, expectations and performance
so far results in some kind of response on her part
The
response is played out in her interaction with the material/technical mediums
and it is that encounter which determines and specifies the response and the
intermediality generated, which has been triggered by the experiencer’s prompt
Intermediality is generated on my terms as the solo
performer/activator, but is also utterly mediated and defined by the system with
which it is constructed. In addition, I respond primarily to the intermediality
I have generated, rather than focusing on others’ responses – this is almost
impossible in the moment of performance in my experience, where I become caught
and suspended in the system I have created, subject both to its mechanisms and
emergent properties. The nature of this interaction problematises
notions of the work introduced above as open to a form of ‘co-authoring’
through the loop between performer/activator and experiencer and rather
positions it more productively in relation to aspects of control within and
between the different elements of the system described.
There is therefore something about the operation of live intermediality which troubles without invalidating or severing Erika Fischer-Lichte’s notion of the autopoietic feedback loop in performance. I would argue that the ‘system’ of autopoiesis in this mode of performance is primarily positioned in a loop between performer/activator, material, technical medium and intermediality where the recurrent ‘network of ongoing interactions’ (Maturana and Varela 1987: 43-44) takes place. Such recurrent interactions, as expounded above, effectively exclude experiencers, in that the system is constantly feeding back to and producing itself. They witness the operation of the system and can ‘trigger’ its actions, without being part of how such actions are ‘specified’ and ‘determined’.
There is therefore something about the operation of live intermediality which troubles without invalidating or severing Erika Fischer-Lichte’s notion of the autopoietic feedback loop in performance. I would argue that the ‘system’ of autopoiesis in this mode of performance is primarily positioned in a loop between performer/activator, material, technical medium and intermediality where the recurrent ‘network of ongoing interactions’ (Maturana and Varela 1987: 43-44) takes place. Such recurrent interactions, as expounded above, effectively exclude experiencers, in that the system is constantly feeding back to and producing itself. They witness the operation of the system and can ‘trigger’ its actions, without being part of how such actions are ‘specified’ and ‘determined’.
There is also a contradiction here however, as the space of
the performance, the availability of the performer/activator and the means of
production, the improvisatory mode and the freedom to move and interact
promises a heightened form of autopoiesis similar to that identified by Fischer-Lichte,
where the role of the experiencer is ‘not only acknowledged as a pre-condition
for performance, but explicitly invoked as such’ (2004: 39). In addition, the intermedial space I generate through this practice is one which, particularly through its sonic aspects can enclose and enfold the experiencer; the experiencer shares this experience with me – we are ‘bodily co-present’. However, the system whereby intermediality is generated is still self contained and effectively sealed. The ‘mutual exchange of perceiving and being-perceived’ is disrupted, as though I can apprehend the experiencers in the space and am aware of their positioning and something of their responses to the work through that, my focus is drawn insistently back into the system within which I am operating. As such, the experiencers sit in relation to this operation, conceptually out of the loop of creation.
In conclusion, the initial characterisation of this practice
as a fluid, open and interactive installation, which was indeed a view to which
I previously subscribed, is now one which is contradicted by analysis
through autopoietic theory of the operation of the system at the centre of it. It
is here that the contradictory qualities of the work are revealed; its operation as
both an open space and a defined system, an emergent place of becoming and a
self-determining organism, which constructs the performance environment to the
exclusion of those who experience the work. It is within these tensions that the interest and engagement with the practice lies and they will therefore be aspects of the work that I continue to test and
interrogate.
Bibliography
Capra,
F (2003) The Hidden Connections,
London, Harper Collins
Elleström, L
(ed.) (2010), Media Borders,
Multimodality and Intermediality, Basingstoke/New York, Palgrave Macmillan
Fischer-Lichte, E
(2008) The Transformative Power of
Performance: A New Aesthetics, (trans. Saskya Iris Jain) London/New York,
Routledge
Hayles, N (1999) How
We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics,
Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press
Maturana, H and Varela, J (1987) The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding,
Boston, Shambhala
Nelson, R (2010)
‘Prospective Mapping’ in Bay-Cheng, S, Kattenbelt, C, Lavender, A, Nelson, R
(eds.) Mapping Intermediality in
Performance, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press
