Review of DocPerform 3: Postdigital

Thank you to David Bawden for taking notes during the sessions!

Temporary Poster

Over 50 participants took part in the third Documenting Performance symposium, held at City, University of London, on 16th May 2019, hosted by CityLIS, the Department of Library & Information Science. DocPerform is a part of the wider CityLIS project examining The Future of Documents.

The introductory session was opened by Sarah Rubidge, Professor Emerita at the University of Chichester, and long-standing member of the DocPerform team, who set the day into context. From the first symposium which focused mainly on conventional records of performance in libraries and archives, DocPerform has moved to deal more and more with the digital realm. This matches the changes in performance itself, which, from the 1980s onwards, has moved beyond the stage into other spaces, including the digital. In turn this leads to a number of questions;

– how do we document temporal media?
– how do we document improvised performances?
– how do we document performance systems and installations, especially immersive installations?
– how do we document processes?
– how do we document and preserve digital works, which are already disappearing as systems and software become obsolete?

Solving these problems requires research, not just applying existing archival methods.

The keynote presentation, The experience parlour, was given by Lyn Robinson from CityLIS, who reminded participants that the perspective of DocPerform is from that of library and information science, the remit of which is keeping the record of humankind. It is inspired in one way by Bruce Shuman’s vision of thirty years ago of a library as an experience parlour or experiencybrary, which would store immersive experiences which could be accessed by the library’s patrons. Virtual and augmented reality technologies, which now offer the prospect of an unreal reality, seem to offer the prospect of making Shuman’s vision a practical proposition. In order to bring this about, we will need to fully understand the nature of these new forms of documents, in order to be able to describe and use them properly. This will require extensive research, rooted in the concepts of document theory as originally outlined by Paul Otlet and Susanne Briet.

The first full session, devoted to Technologies, had four speakers.

Mark Underwood, an experienced sound designer now undertaking a PhD at the University of Surry, gave a presentation Exploring the extent to which sound design enhances temporal and somatic user experiences in mixed reality environments. This examined how intelligent sound design can help make such experiences as immersive as possible, with immersion understood as a deep mental involvement. Immersion has both psychological and sensory aspects. The former can be attained, for example by reading a book, while the latter is the aspect of immersion enhanced by sound. Mark showed, by playing a film clip with and without sound, that when sound is absent we may notice visual inputs more clearly; more sensory input is not, in itself, an advantage, it has to be carefully designed. By implication, this will influence the impact of documented experiences.

Hansjörg Schmidt and Nick Hunt described their interactive installation Traces, an aspect of their wider Library of Light project at Rose Bruford College, which is developing repository for lighting practices in various creative disciplines. Traces allows light effects to be recorded with a camera or smart phone, enabling an investigation of the relation between the ways we experience light, and the ways we can record and document it. The installation was made available in a separate room for participants to experience during the day.

https://performinglightblog.wordpress.com/schedule/traces/

The presentation by Tom Ensom and Jack McConchie, curators at the Tate galleries, Preserving virtual reality artworks, outlined the potential, and the challenges, of documenting digital installation artworks which employ virtual reality (VR), and which offer immersive and multi-sensory experiences. VR engines such as Unity, Source, Unreal Engine and CryEngine, originally developed for videogame development, can be used for this purpose. There remain considerable practical difficulties, not least cost and effort of collaborating with the VR industry. At a minimum, however, to stand the best chance of preserving such works, we can, and should:

  • start collecting now
  • create and archive a disk image of the running artwork
  • gather and create documentation that shows how to do this
  • create and archive a disk image of the production materials in a software environment in which they can be accessed
  • monitor the evolution of technologies, to identify problems and opportunities.

Joseph Dunne-Howrie, from CityLIS, gave a presentation on Trans-participation in the infosphere. Luciano Floridi’s concept of the infosphere, the contemporary digital information environment, is taken as a framework . The production and dissemination of media acts as the infrastructure of the infosphere, replicating our presence across platforms and communication networks. Audience participation in the infosphere and the condition of onlife, where the physical and virtual worlds fuse seamlessly, provides new forms of interaction and identity, as evidenced by examples from immersive theatre.

The second session, entitled Transcience, also featured four presentations.

Clarice Hilton, giving a presentation of behalf of herself and her fellow VR researcher Shivani Hassard, discussed Frictional forces in creating the effect of presence in immersive experiences. Presence in virtual reality is promoted by the effective illusions of place (creating the belief that we are somewhere we are not) and of plausibility (creating the belief that was is happening is natural and sensible). A contribution to plausibility is given by providing the sense of friction in VR experiences, making such experiences involve actual physical effort, so reinforcing the physicality of the actual body.

Piotr Woycicki from Aberystwyth University presented AR remediation/documentation of Our Lady of Shadows, an example of an augmented reality space which is at the same time enclosed but also open to the outside world. The work is an AR adaption of a radio play, giving a reimagining of Tennyson’s poem The Lady of Shalott. The discussion of this presentation led to the idea that, although we may think of audience interaction as a feature of modern and novel formats, it may be that radio drama allows audiences to be active participants [Tim Crook, Radio Drama, London: Routledge, 1999].

Harry Robert Wilson, Digital Thinker in Residence, for the National Theatre of Scotland, gave a presentation on Immersive media and the multi-modal document in PaR. This reflected on the documentation of immersive media in light of the definitions of document and documentation given by Angela Piccini and Caroline Rye [Of fevered archives and the quest for total documentation, in L. Allegue et al. (eds.) Practice-as-Research in performance and screen. London: Palgrave Macmillam, 2009), 34-39]. There are two distinctive features of VR documentation of performance. It puts the audience, in a sense, inside the document; and it integrates other forms of document, such as video, photographs, text, sound, and set design. However, it would wise not to claim uncritical and absolute “immersion” or “presence” from any currently feasible VR documents.

Sarah Rubidge presented an interactive artwork of which she was co-creator, Sensuous Geographies, a performative sound and video installation. Now that artwork itself is no longer active, would it be feasible to recreate the experience in VR? The presentation raised many questions about how to translate an experience in physical reality into virtual reality, while capturing sufficient of the essence of the experience to say that the VR version was, in some sense, the same. These questions are fundamental to the documentation of any interactive performance of artwork, and more broadly to new forms of digital document. See: Sensuous Geographies

The closing session was devoted to Structures and Interfaces.

A third CityLIS speaker, Deborah Lee, discussed Documenting interactivity and post-digital performances: exploring the application of data models and standards for augmented reality performance. This presentation examined the limitations of the standard library metadata models for describing performance documentation. The essential problem is that performance does not fit well into the bibliographic world described by standards such as the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Library Reference Model (LRM). These models assume that there is a single creator of a work, and hence cannot adequately describe interactive or participatory works. Indeed, they do not cope well with works defined in space and time; they are fine for recording the text of a play, for example, but not a single performance. Nor do they recognise AR and VR among their defined media types. These problems had been noted a while ago, before experience had been gained in the used for FRBR and its associated standards [D. Miller and P. Le Boeuf, “Such stuff as dreams are made on”: how does FRBR fit performing arts? Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly, 39(3-4), 151-178]. Discussion of this presentation suggested that these were philosophical issues, of fundamental importance in keeping records of performance documentation. In turn, documenting performance is a good test bed for examining the issues which will arise with other new forms of document.

To close the day, the True Heart theatre company presented The Genie is out of the bottle: who’s got a story to tell? Taking comments from members of the audience on their impressions and experiences of the day, they presented them as Playback Theatre – short improvised performances interpreting and representing experiences – without any of the digital or technological means discussed throughout the day.

Installations and performances were available to the participants throughout the day. Apart from Traces, already mentioned, the Itinerant Poetry Library opened, and Rebecca McCutcheon’s virtual reality performances Affective bodies in dynamic spaces: documenting site-specific theatre practice were made available for participants to experience.

Further information about the symposium is available on the website. The full papers will appear in a special issue of Proceedings from the Document Academy.

 

Documenting Performance: Sensuous Geographies

Documenting Performance: Sensuous Geographies
Collaborative, exploratory research workshop held at CityLIS on March 26th 2019

This is a brief account of our collaborative, exploratory research workshop held on March 26th 2019. For further details, please contact Dr Lyn Robinson or Dr Joseph Dunne-Howrie.

***

IMG_6019CityLIS has a longstanding interest in the nature of documents, document theory and the processes of documentation. We understand a document to be something that stands as ‘evidence’, and follow a broad interpretation of those entities that may be classed as documents, including data sets, works of art and performance.

We have a current focus on novel forms of document, which are afforded by new technologies. These technologies, including multimedia, pervasive networks, multisensory transmission (taste, smell, touch), VR and AR, facilitate documents with which we can interact and participate to a greater or lesser extent, and which also promote the experience of immersion, so that a scripted unreality may be perceived as something approaching reality. In many cases, these documents have a temporal component, in that they are experienced at a particular moment in time. Additionally, at any given time, they may be experienced by multiple participants or members of the audience.

Examples include born-digital documents such as video games, interactive fictions or narrative, immersive artworks, and theatre and dance performances produced in VR.

Further, such technologies might also be used to recreate (document), and thus preserve, non-digital documents with a temporal aspect, such as performance.

Whilst the technologies used to create these new forms of document can also be used to preserve them for future access, it is important to note the difference between digitization as a process, and as a technique for preservation. Digital preservation is responsible for preserving digitization.

In order to document and preserve these novel document formats, we need to understand their nature, or documentality.

This one-day workshop brought artists and engineers together with library and information specialists, to explore how immersive, participatory, performance related works could be understood, and thus documented.

We took as our example, the immersive and interactive installation Sensuous Geographies created in 2003 by Professor Sarah Rubidge in collaboration with Professor Alistair Macdonald.

This choreosonic installation, although no longer extant, has been documented by texts, photographs, sound and video recordings. Several physical components remain, including the costumes and the materials used to create the flooring.

We would like to move beyond these forms of documentary evidence (themselves documents), to recreate a version of the original piece in VR. The original installation offers a range of multisensory aspects for documentalists to consider; not only how to recreate audio and visual aspects of the installation in VR, but how to include the elements of presence (participation) and immersion (a feeling of reality).

Our workshop, hosted by myself and Joseph Dunne-Howrie, began with a presentation from Sarah, which set out the nature of the installation, highlighting the features we would need to recreate in order to fully document this unique work, so that it could be made available to new audiences, or indeed again to those who interacted with the installation in 2003/4, in as close to the original format as possible.

We then heard brief presentations from each or our workshop members, on their areas of expertise, followed by informal group discussion around documentation of a multisensory, interactive, immersive, time-based installation.

As a starting point, we considered whether existing conceptual models for describing documentary works, including FRBR (IFLA LRM), and any metadata standards associated with artefacts or performance, offered existing work on which we could build. No model for works similar to Sensuous Geographies was known to the group, although this remains an area for further exploration.

We talked about the nature of the surrogate document, or simulacrum, and acknowledged that our recreation of the installation in VR, if successful, would be a new document, irrespective of how close to creating a work with the feeling of the original experience we came.

Working conceptually, we identified layers of the work that would need to be reproduced in our VR version of Sensuous Geographies:

  • The physical attributes of the installation, the space, the flooring, costumes and screens
  • Participation as either an audience member or a someone who entered the space
  • The soundscape: ambient sounds to give a sense of presence, then the interactive musical score reacting to participants’ movements and interaction (MacDonald ‘composed’ the underlying character of the soundscape in realtime by selecting sound strands and processing systems)
  • The rules embedded in the interactive system, governing the sounds, and the level at which participants could interact
  • The sensations experienced by the participants; sight, sound, touch, movement/direction

We then discussed in broad categories, the technological possibilities that we could employ to realize the work:

  • Static view
  • 360 video on screen
  • 360 video plus headset
  • 360 video plus headset and hand controllers
  • VR headset and empty space
  • VR headset and set pieces
  • VR headset and sensors
  • Sound: multichannel audio, or binaural audio
    (the latter would need to be connected to the participant’s head movement)

The discussions were engaging and constructive. We need now to describe in more detail each ‘layer’ of Sensuous Geographies, and to further explore the technologies available to render the work in as realistic a format as possible.

Our aim is to produce a specification for a project to render the work in VR, and we would welcome any thoughts as to how this could be achieved.

This project offers a case study of documentation, digitization, and subsequent preservation of a multisensory, interactive and immersive choreosonic installation. We believe this to be a novel undertaking, and one which will be of interest to artists and creators of such works, to library and information professionals, to archivists, scholars, engineers and those interested in cultural heritage.

Participants in our workshop included:

Astrid Breel (via Skype)
Joseph Dunne-Howrie
Matthew Freeman (via Skype)
Alistair MacDonald (via Skype)
Jorge Lopes Ramos
Lyn Robinson
Sarah Rubidge
Rebecca Stewart
Mark Underwood
Zhi Xu 

***

DocPerform 3: PostDigital
May 16th-17th 2019
City, University of London

Proceedings from DocPerform 2: New Technologies

DocPerform Image Selected papers from our second DocPerform symposium were published as a special issue of Proceedings from the Document Academy. We are pleased to site our work alongside members of the multi- and interdisciplinary community of researchers focusing on documents and documentation.

Join us for DocPerform 3: PostDigital!

Immersion: A New(ish) Way to Experience Art and the World

This post was originally published on the CityLIS blog.

As technology becomes more interactive and digital information becomes more pervasive, theatre-makers are experimenting with new forms of audience participation. The potential technology has to distribute a performance over time and distance is collapsing medial boundaries. In this post, I explore how immersion no longer denotes just the spatial dynamics of a performance by including multiple forms of audience interactivity, which may well constitute new forms of collaboration and co-authorship. 

***

Immersive theatre has become a popular term in the UK over the past decade. It encompasses quite a broad range of performance practices, but at it’s most basic immersive theatre denotes performances that occur around the audience, who unlike in conventional theatre spaces experience the piece by moving inside a fictional world. But immersion does not just denote spatial characteristics. Participation is also a common trope, where artists aim to give audiences some agency over how they experience the story they are immersed inside of.

When I was an undergraduate student studying drama in the mid-2000s, what is now called immersive theatre was more commonly referred to as promenade theatre. Moving inside a performance was closely aligned to the concept of total theatre – a theatre that activates all of the senses and emotions to take the audience on a cathartic journey through a drama, thereby leaving them spiritually transformed. Originally published in 1938, Antonin Artaud The Theatre and It’s Double contains an early description of this theatre:

We intend to do away with stage and auditorium, replacing them by a kind of single, undivided locale without any partitions of any kind and this will become the very scene of the action. Direct contact will be established between the audience and the show, between actors and audience, from the very fact that the audience is seated in the centre of the action and is encircled by it. This encirclement comes from the shape of the house itself. Abandoning the architecture of present-day theatres, we will rent some kind of barn or hangar rebuilt along lines of certain Tibetan temples (2001, p.74).

A good example of the kind of space Artaud describes was Area 10. This former steel mill in Peckham, South East London was used as an art space in the late 2000s. It had no seating or any defined performance space. In 2009, I performed in Living Structures’ devised show Biosphere. The show began with the audience sat in a circle watching performers fertilising a plant with their excrement. Then, to a burst of choral singing, a different group of performers  – which I was a part of –  emerged from a plume of smoke, wearing nothing but white underpants and reindeer masks. Once the audience were ushered from the space, a large hessian tent was erected, which they were then free to explore. The inside of the tent was designed like a maze, with a series of installations located at certain nodes. The audience were given reindeer masks and hessian robes to wear. The costume was an attempt to deepen their immersion in the drama by making them part of the aesthetic environment and so become embedded in the narrative unfolding around them.

Whilst Biosphere conforms to many of the conventions of immersive theatre in terms of environmental envelopment and physical proximity between actors and audience, it is more closely aligned with promenade theatre through it’s absence of audience participation. Save for the final third act when the audience explored the maze, much of the audience’s time was taken up with watching dramatic action unfold before and around them rather than taking part in it. This “taking part” can manifest on a number of levels, from direct and improvisational contact with characters, to making choices that determine how a performance unfolds for the individual and for the audience as a whole.

A common characteristic of much immersive theatre is the fragmentation of dramatic narrative, which enables spectators to create their own version of the story. Punchdrunk’s The Drowned Man (2014) is the most elaborate piece of immersive theatre I have seen to date, both in terms of it’s scale and sheer detail. The world of The Drowned Man was one that could have been plucked from David Lynch’s imagination. Part abandoned movie set, part Americana dreamscape, part Frankensteinian nightmare, this was a world that I could never fully grasp. Yet it was the very impossibility of experiencing the drama in it’s entirety that drove my movement through it. This impulse is noted as a key characteristic of immersion in theatre by Josephine Machon, who frames it in terms of exploration: “Rediscovery is central to the experience: of space, narrative, character, theme, and sometimes even of unknown depths, or hidden emotions and memories specific to that individual participant”​ (2013, p.28). The version of The Drowned Man I experienced was not the same as my partner’s nor, indeed, anyone else who saw it. True, we inevitably saw some of the same scenes, but the order in which we experienced them in relation to what we had seen previously informed our interpretation of the overall narrative. The relationships between the characters was experienced out of sync or, rather, experienced as pieces of a puzzle we could not hope to assemble as a cohesive whole in a few hours.

We can see, here, links between immersive theatre and the genre of open world games. Games like Skyrim (2011) and the Fallout series (1997-) allow players to explore highly elaborate worlds with far fewer limitations imposed on them than games that have a linear story structure. The lack of definite goal or quest in these games and The Drowned Man creates a far more tangible reality for the spectator or the player because they are not required to follow one path. Instead, they are given a choice of routes inside a virtual reality. Open worlds create many potential experiences for players compared with those that are available in linear game narratives. The ostensive freedom this structure affords audiences and players more closely aligns it with the experience of everyday life.

The links between theatre and gaming can be developed further to address how immersive worlds are built as a collaborative partnership between actors and audiences. ZU-UK’s executive director Jorge Ramos discusses participation in the context of the “experience economy” where audiences, or “players”, act as co-authors of art live art works (2015, p.8). This was evident in ZU-UK’s six hour, overnight epic Hotel Medea (2009-2012). During this re-telling of the Medea myth, players frequently interacted with characters improvisationally. Ramos uses the term “micro-events” to describe these interactions to proffer an approach to immersive theatre that he expresses as “the dramaturgy of participation” (ibid, p.3). The degree of participation increased over the course of the performance in a way that allowed the audience to gradually become part of the story rather than as invertentionist elements.

These micro-events can be understood as private or secret dramas known only to those who experience them.  Participation in the context of immersion includes the building of imaginary worlds through interactivity. In this way, immersive performance  “aims to provide, in everyday activities at the moment of the encounter, modest but pervasive communication, provisional social consensus and micro-utopias”​ (Harvie, 2013, p.7). Describing it in these terms might appear to exaggerate the impact immersive performance can potentially have on the real world until we remember that utopias are non-places of the imagination. The physical immersion in these fictional worlds allows audiences to temporarily inhabit societies that we may celebrate or fear.

The popularity of immersive theatre is partly a product of our contemporary media ecology, which places interaction at it’s centre. Technologically mediated communication has become a significant part of everyday experience. Social media enables these interactions to stretch over time, distance, place and device, thus making the locus of communicative exchanges highly diffuse. Patrick Longeran argues that Facebook, Twitter and the like act as stages where we perform identities to a “network of followers”. When analysed in the context of theatre, online communication produces a distributed mode of performance which “can extend a production both temporally and spatially, pushing [performances] beyond the boundaries of the stage, and beyond the performance of the action in real time” (2015, pp.2-4). Moreover, interaction is not just a feature of the event, but constitutes the event itself:“What makes social media distinctive from other forms of digital performance is the extent to which interactivity is not just a context for reception, but a core element of the overall composition” (ibid, p.21).

Blast Theory’s 2097: We Made Ourselves Over (2017) pushes the envelope of immersive theatre by spreading the immersive world in live and recorded iterations. 2097 presents a dystopian vision of Hull and the Danish city Aarhus following an ecological catastrophe. On 1st October 2017, every public telephone rang in Hull at 2pm. The audience listened to a voice from the future, Hessa, who invited them to record a message to send to her community about what they think is the most important thing to preserve from the present. The piece also consists of five short sci-fi films and one interactive film for smartphones. All of these different iterations act as portals into a fictional world that is embedded in reality through technology, and is therefore not confined to the spatial-temporal zone of live theatre.2097 is neither live or non-live (if we consider ‘live’ to denote physical proximity and ephemerality). It inhabits a temporal plane inbetween or outside of this binary.

Charlie Gere argues that technology has become so embedded into reality that the term digital culture “risks becoming a tautology” (2008, p.7). Whilst the importance of maintaining body-to-body contact in theatre continues to be debated, it is undeniable that performance-makers are embracing the affordances of online communication to find new ways of engaging with audiences. Matt Adams argues that the “most significant characteristic of the ‘digital revolution’ is an explosive new amount of interaction and participation from what has gone before”​ (Adams in Blake, 2014, p.ix). The link he makes between interaction and participation is important to understand when discussing the kinds of activity immersive experiences engender in audiences. Immersion in theatre is an expanding term that is now encompassing communication networks. No single event exists in this form of immersion because it is composed of individual experiences that occur over time and distance.

The immersive spaces of the performance are created by the participation of the audience. This idea resonates with Floridi’s notion of “onlife” – the merging of the digital and offline worlds to create the “infosphere” (2014). The immersive qualities of technology are beginning to be utilised by theatre and performance artists as a way of enriching how audiences can participate in their aesthetic experiences. Immersion in art could constitute a revolution in how theatre is not just experienced but also produced in collaboration with audiences. Moreover, it might allow us the opportunity to rehearse how we can live in a hyper-connected environment without becoming subsumed into a digital fugue of voices and images by providing temporary spaces for genuine intimacy and dialogue.

Adams, M. (2014) Foreword. In: B. Blake, Theatre & the Digital. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.viii-xi

Artaud, A. (2001) The Theatre and Its Double. London: Calder

Floridi, L. (2014) The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gere, C. (2008) Digital Culture. 2nd ed. London: Reaktion

Harvie, J. (2013) Fair Play: Art, Performance and Neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Longeran, P. (2015) Theatre & Social Media. London: Palgrave

Machon. J. (2013) Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan

***

You can follow Joe on Twitter.

DocPerform 2: Proceedings to be Published March 2018

DocPerform Logo 3We are delighted to announce that the proceedings from DocPerform 2: New Technologies, which took place on 6th-7th November 2017, will be published in a special issue of Proceedings from the Document Academy. The issue is due out on March 1st 2018.

All speakers who presented at the two day event are invited to submit a full paper based on their session. Please send an email to lyn@city.ac.uk to confirm your intention to submit an original paper.

Papers should reflect the content presented at DocPerform 2, and showcase original work which has not been previously published, nor which is scheduled to appear in any other forthcoming publication, print or electronic. Manuscripts should be between 2,500-5,000 words. It is usually possible to include other media formats, but authors should check with the journal editorial team. Further guidance for submission can be found on the journal website. The deadline for submission is December 31st, 2017.

The process for submission is as follows:

  1. Authors submit to the submission manager. Here is a direct link: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/submit.cgi?context=docam. (Also reachable from the homepage of the journal, link in the sidebar.) Deadline December 31st 2017.
  2. The basic format for text submissions is: up to 5,000 words, Times 12pt, 1.5” margins, single space, no header or footer. Content should be submitted in an editable format (not PDF). Besides basic text, the submission of slideshows, audio files, videos, etc. is allowed. For some projects, the journal can allow more “play” with these formatting requirements. If people have specific needs, they can email Tim Gorichanaz (gorichanaz@drexel.edu) to discuss.
  3. Once submitted, papers will be sent to Lyn Robinson as first-round reviewer, for confirmation that the paper reflects what was presented. Depending on each case, authors may need to make some revisions at this stage.
  4. Among the editorial board (sometimes with outside help, depending on the topic and needs), the second-round review will then occur. Revisions, additional clarification or copyediting may be requested at this stage. This communication will be directly to the author, since they’ll be in the system.
  5.  For a model of what to write and how it will look, see the issue page for last year’s Docam meeting: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/docam/vol3/iss2/
  6. Publication date for the issue is March 1, 2018.

Please contact lyn@city.ac.uk if you have any queries about DocPerform. Please contact gorichanaz@drexel.edu if you have any queries relating to Proceedings from the Document Academy.

Further information about the Document Academy.
Further information about CityLIS.

 

DocPerform 2: A Twitter Archive

This post was written by current CityLIS student Tom Ash. Tom collected the Tweets shared around our hashtag over the duration of the conference, 6-7th Nov 2017, using a popular application written by Martin Hawksey. The post will be of value to others interested in collating and and archiving twitter activity surrounding an event, user or hashtag. The text first appeared on Tom’s personal blog, and is reproduced here with kind permission.

You can follow Tom on Twitter.

***

Documenting Performance 2017

Image by James Hobbs http://www.james-hobbs.co.uk

This past week saw the return of the Documenting Performance Symposium at City, University of London, with DocPerform 2: New Technologies. You can read my thoughts about last years conference in my post On Documenting Performance and Suzanne Briet. To mark this years event I have created a  Twitter Archive of the symposium constructed using the #docperform hashtag and the TAGS twitter archiving tool by @mhawksey.

The Tool creates an archive of all tweets using a chosen keyword or #hastag in Googlesheets, which you can then explore interactively using the TAGSExplorer. This produces and interactive network graph style visualisation allowing you to explore twitter activity around your chosen hastag or term.

You can also explore the #docperform hastag using the TAGSExplorer

You can also explore the full archive via the TAGSArchive

Storify
In addition to this you can also the Storify created by @lynrobinson of the event which I have linked to here.

***
Documenting Performance (DocPerform) is a project organised and run by Department of Library & Information Science, (CityLIS), at City, University of London. The 2017 symposium was held from 6th to 6th November 2017 and aimed to bring together a multidisciplinary group of people, with a shared interested in understanding and developing the ways in which performance, as part of our cultural heritage, can be created, recorded, preserved, re-experienced and reused. The symposium is intended to collate a representative body of work in this area, to foster new partnerships and collaborations, and to support the dissemination and implementation of ideas generated.

For more details see the DocPerform website:  https://documentingperformance.com

Documenting DocumentingPerformance

Two of our current CityLIS students, Hanna James and Matt Peck, have combined their writing talents to create this joint review of the presentations which were given on Day 1 of DocPerform 2: New Technologies, held on 6th November 2017.

The review exemplifies the benefits of joint, reflective writing, as each writer responds to the comments and thoughts of the other. It seems to me, as though the whole reaches beyond the sum of its parts as a result.

The work describes clearly the challenges and responses to the documentation of performance, as understood and investigated by our fabulous speakers.

This blog post first appeared on both Matt’s and Hanna’s personal blogs, and is reproduced here with kind permission.

You can follow Hanna and Matt on Twitter.

***

Image by James Hobbs http://www.james-hobbs.co.uk

HJ: The music flowed like honey when Lynnsey Weissenberg started playing her fiddle. It was an instantly intelligible experience to my senses: a ‘here and now’ experience. Once it was over, it was over, and no two performances are exactly the same. The performance itself did not leave any artefacts behind, but left the audience with their own memories of the performed piece (and, in some cases, photos or videos on their iPhones). For that reason, the power of documenting performances lies not only in preserving the performance (or a shadow of it), but also the creative process and even the theatrical experience. On the first day of DocPerform2 (6 November 2017), the speakers talked about the challenges, the opportunities, the twists, the value, the functions and many more about documenting performances. In this post, my CityLIS course-mate Matt Peck and I will reflect on and recap the presentations of the day. Matt and I have different writing styles and points of view. Through juxtaposing our writings, we draw up the diverged focuses in one post and collectively constitute a multi-dimensional picture of the day.

MLP: The final presentation included a film from C-DaRE’s Resilience and Inclusion Online Toolkit. The video explores the dance-making practices of several disabled dance artists, and the lead creative, Kate Marsh, is interviewed on camera and speaks about coming to terms with owning work that her body produces. It is something of a paradox that she is not one of the featured performers in the video, but its choreographer, positioning her as the intellectual owner of the work belonging to other bodies and being recorded and filmed by other bodies entirely. For me, the tension between individual subjectivity and possession was a thread throughout a number of the sessions and gets to several fundamental challenges of documenting performance. These include establishing clarity on whose point of view is being represented and mediated and determining appropriate (and useable) attribution for that point of view.

HJ: Virtuosity is undoubtedly a possession of individual dancers, while subjectivity of the creative process is seen as an important element of archiving. We saw speakers discuss documents unintended to be archival materials but nevertheless attributed to form part of a totality and thereby made into or considered as documents. In the case of Siobhan Davies’s archive, also presented by C-DaRE’s Sarah Whatley, rehearsal materials together with other hidden items such as lighting cues and speaker layout, reconstructed and translated Davies’s creativity. The interface of the digital archive was designed to meet the users’ needs as a virtual environment that endeavours to provide contextual information for better understanding of the artist’s performances. This typifies much of the archivists’ work: pinning down the creators’ subjectivity whilst bearing end users’ point of view in mind.

MLP: Issues of this type were present from the outset — the AusStage and Irish Traditional Music Archives both reflect attempts at representing the multi-faceted nature of performances, and one of the key challenges they both grapple with is demonstrating the centrality of the humans involved in their respective art forms. Both presentations made compelling arguments that this focus on the individual is important. On the stage, that might be making explicit the links between theatre professionals who rely on a personalised network to achieve their respective creative visions, while the ontology Lynnsey Weissenberg described had people at its centre because they are critical to the evolution and spread of song renditions or playing styles. These developments retain links to their originators and must be acknowledged in record-keeping to allow archive users to trace how social networks map on to music creation and transmission.

HJ: Indeed, Lynnsey Weissenberg’s LITMUS project is fascinating in terms of her designation to capture the people-centred relationship of traditional Irish music and dance that fit RDF. The predicate in the RDF triple is employed to denote the relationship  one derives from the allegory/story telling characteristics of the heritage. At the same time, it seeks to find a solution to the non-uniform language (English/Irish) and geographical attributes. It also attempts to decipher and foreground the context in a way  unfulfilled by existing vocabularies such as American Folklore Society’s Ethnographic Thesaurus (AFSET). These hierarchical linked data act as keepers preserving the intricate elements in Irish music and dance, just as the digital marks in Ramona Riedzewski (V&A) and Jenny Fewster’s (AusStage) project of building an IMDB for performing arts.

Picture1

The relations between memories, mementos and digital marks (Credit: Jenny Fewster)

Riedzewski talked about taking up the role of being the custodian of mementos (e.g. script with handwritten comments) during the process of building the database, which encapsulate (personal) memories surrounding theatre performances. While documentation of these mementos provides a fixity to artistry, the virtual gallery breaks the national boundaries and allows sharing of these memories in the infosphere. This characteristic of digital archive is also relevant to Pam Schweitzer’s The Reminiscence Theatre Archive, a deposit of interviews created between 1983 to 2005. These records are not only materials for theatre production during that period, but also are containers of the interviewees’ personal memories. Their survival owes to Schweitzer’s relentless effort and is given a refreshed life in education and research.

MLP: Marc Kosciewjew’s paper, the most theoretical of the day, focused on material literacy, which linked nicely with the National Theatre archive’s efforts to document the craft-making process for costuming and other theatrical properties. Illuminating the origins of materials used on stage can both support future research and contribute to actors’ development of their respective performances. The work of the James Hardiman Library in NUI Galway demonstrated other ways in which subjectivity can be reclaimed, highlighting collection items that help users to recreate characterisation techniques such as a stammer shown in an actor’s modified play script. It became clear in these talks, and others, that the documents were not just of the performance, but of the performers themselves. Indeed, we heard from several sources about a hesitancy of professionals to refer to archival material lest their own visions be compromised or unduly influenced. This brings the notion of ownership of a body’s product full circle: another body fears creative contamination by coming into contact with that product.

HJ: Kosciewjew’s presentation also brought about the notion of understanding – the materiality of document and performance is intertwined with materialism, things. Michael Buckland conceptualised information as knowledge, process, thing. Kosciewjew spoke about how documents illuminate the context of information, integrate teaching and research. We saw a second triangular flow chart in Erin Lee’s (National Theatre) presentation “Should theatre disappear like bubble?”. The diagram embodied a three-way dialogue of archivist, academic and practitioners in using archives for teaching, research and preservation.

Picture2

A three way dialogue in preserving NT archives (Credit: Erin Lee)

On the flip side, Barry Houlihan (NUI Galway) showed us how an array of documents of the Irish Theatre Archive had been used to engage new scholarship and reminded us that, for a user, whether a curious undergraduate or an established academic, the starting point is the same – to discover new knowledge. As the stammer example Matt quoted above, users gain an extra strand of knowledge about a production, which is unobtainable from just reading a book of script borrowed from a library. Hence, curation and the way to stage materials is instrumental in research and learning. Moreover, the discovery process is reinforced by user’s proficiency in using the digital discovery tool. In other words, archival literacy is pivotal to the success of an archive.

MLP: Willing documentation and re-presentation of first person experiences were a focus of the afternoon sessions. We saw that in one form as submissions to the IDOCDE database, which allows dance instructors to use their own words to narrate their movement and teaching practices. But it may also be formalised through interview for later dramatic reenactment by a company such as the Reminiscence Theatre. Alternatively, as we saw in the DARC Practice performance, it may involve oblique narration, gesture and self harm. Each of these represented a highly personalised form of expression, the mediation of which creates documents of its own. We saw examples of this throughout the talks, nicely described in the end by Sarah Whatley as ‘accidental archives’. That could occur in the present — Ernst Fischer offered the fabric he cut out of his shirt — or in historical practice. The Reminiscence Theatre, for instance, conducted interviews in order to produce its verbatim scripts for stage presentation, but the interviews themselves, whether transcribed or recorded, operate in manifold ways: capturing an individual’s history, documenting the moment of the interview encounter, and demonstrating a particular methodology of theatre-making. But even when the archiving is evidently more intentional, such as the filming of theatre productions for commercial or practical purposes, André Deridder offered a useful reminder that the artefact is merely a simulacrum of the live act and should not be confused as its equivalent. Rather, he suggested it may be an entirely different work, and even if there is no apparent change to the performance itself, to the extent its representation has been mediated through both the camera mechanism and the subjective choices of operators and editors, that seems right.

HJ: IDOCDE’s Mind the Dance project (John Taylor) and DARC (Ernst Fischer and Manuel Vason) also demonstrate that documenting performance does not need to be discursive. Mind the Dance functions rather as a reflective repository used for contemporary dance education. Taylor exemplified this with Kerstin Kussmaul’s article comparing body work to the architectural design concept of tensegrity, to deploy symbolic nature in communicating an art form. DARC, an open source archive for artists based in London, testifying the act of documentation is a creative process in its own right. At the symposium, Ernst Fischer and Manuel Vason treated us to a live performance with themes relating to documentation and photography. Vason, a known photographer/performer, has taken on two paradoxical roles single-handedly as a documenter and as a transitory artist. Fischer’s bloodily performance called upon me, an audience, to interpret the message it entailed. An apprehension about blood is an audience’s subjectivity, an immersive experience that left a mark in my memory.

MLP: Properly recognising the various contributions of the individuals that make a performance (and its ancillary documents) is a struggle for the information professional. There are questions about how to technically catalog materials, and Debbie Lee’s talk on FRBR and LRM was instructive. But even if those methods (or the triples approach described and proposed in the AusStage and LITMUS applications) were sufficient, there are still questions about ownership, whether the performer or some other type of copyright holder, and, for lack of a better term, accuracy. The archival process ultimately determines what is and is not important to preserve, and, as Kosciewjew described, the loss of one document may alter the interpretation of the broader story.

HJ: Librarians have a DUTY to describe documents accurately through cataloguing. Switching back to a more technical point of view in terms of documentation within an information technology environment, if performance itself as document, how can it fit in FRBR/LMR data models? Confronted by Debbie Lee, FRBR, a quaternary/high-level bibliographic record model developed by IFLA, has an intrinsic problem in dealing with the relationship of live performances and recordings. FRBR/LMR does not satisfactorily distinguish between work and expression in every given context. When performance is treated as work, there is much distortion to the aboutness of the manifestation. It is hardly an uncanny resemblance of Weissenberg’s LITMUS project. Both papers are showcases of the fact that there is still much effort required to take data relating to performance out of the silos.

The relationship of recordings and performance was also brought up by André Deridder. Is recording simply a shadow of theatrical performance? Or is it something new? Deridder commented conscious audio-visual record rework a stage performance. He used the Belgian artist, René Magritte’s renowned painting “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” to illustrate that a representation is NOT the original object. The act of recording a performance meant to be live with purposeful arrangements (e.g. lighting, sound, camera angle and even presence of audiences) creates an expression on its own and renders different experience to the audience.

MLP: In the end, despite Peter Hall’s protestations, theatre (and other performance) should not disappear like soap bubbles. For one, if nowhere else, it exists in memory. But the information professional has the responsibility to be clear about the limitations of the residue those bubbles leave. One of a document’s attributes as outlined by Buckland is its capacity for spawning other documents, and performance certainly operates in that way. Nevertheless, and perhaps more so than Briet’s antelope, performance is experienced differently in mind and body by each audience member. Documenting performance necessarily reflects the slipperiness between those different experiences. That can be a site of opportunity, but it should be recognised as such and not as an equivalent replacement for the lived experience of either the performer or the audience. Instead, any resulting documents in turn give rise to new performances and, naturally, new documents.