After briefly discussing what Nathalie's performance is about, a friend of mine just showed me this site (maybe you've seen it) that has a seemingly live performance from a guy dressed in a chicken suit. You type in commands and he does what you ask. Too crazy cos I reckon its pre-recorded so freaky how predictable we are. Check it out on http://www.bk.com/en/us/campaigns/subservient-chicken.html
xx
Lerato
yea i saw this a couple of years ago! glatd it still exists. unfortunately its all pre-recorded. and the computer responds to words that have already been registered and scripted. any commands it doesnt recognised will make the chicken say no no. i like it :-)
x
Nathalie
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Nathalie, I really like what you said about simplicity in relation to something really obvious that you hardly notice e.g. the video basketball link you sent (in case Donna and Nástio might wanna see http://www.charlescarver.com/jcs5.htm). I think that in that sense simplicity becomes like a disregarded obstruction of sorts. The ape comes in and interrupts the order of things in a sense, like a fly on the screen and you find yourself subconsciously avoiding it. So in relation to the idea of a game or set of instructions, I think it’s a great idea. Here’s an interesting quote I found about simplicity, reality and instinct:
“There are, however, two preconceptions which beset our speculations about instinct, despite the fact that they are notorious in the history of thought. A true prejudice is rather one which we refuse to abandon. There is, first, the hoary conviction that the real is the enduring and unchanging. The second preconception regarding the nature of the real is the belief that reality must be simple. The instincts, then, being neither simple nor enduring, cannot, perforce, exist…” (pg 141 from “Simplicity Versus Adequacy in the Definition of Instinct” Author(s): C. O. Weber Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Mar. 17, 1927), pp. 141-148 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc)
Later ;-)
Lerato
“There are, however, two preconceptions which beset our speculations about instinct, despite the fact that they are notorious in the history of thought. A true prejudice is rather one which we refuse to abandon. There is, first, the hoary conviction that the real is the enduring and unchanging. The second preconception regarding the nature of the real is the belief that reality must be simple. The instincts, then, being neither simple nor enduring, cannot, perforce, exist…” (pg 141 from “Simplicity Versus Adequacy in the Definition of Instinct” Author(s): C. O. Weber Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Mar. 17, 1927), pp. 141-148 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc)
Later ;-)
Lerato
Skype chat between Nathalie and Lerato
Nathalie: Simplicity has turned out to become its own antonym and is sublated into its complete contrary the more you think, analyse and search for it.
Nathalie: simplicity requires the search into something.... but I guess very blindly. And I like that. Its a bit like the self-motion in performance as well.
Lerato Bereng: yeah, the delving into something because of a frustration with complexity, only to find that when the layers are peeled away, there's tons more to simplicity.
Nathalie: I think simplicity requires this complexity
Lerato Bereng: yep, simplicity actually has very little to do with being easy.
Nathalie: a bit like digging in archaeology.
Lerato Bereng: so in terms of a performance, which already technically is quite complex, how would you envision communicating the many layers we're starting to think about?
Nathalie: open conversation, or by having a set of rules to start some kind of a game where people can peel off the layers as it were.
Nathalie: using the virtual space as an archaeological site. digging for history.
Lerato Bereng: Interesting connection between technology vs archeology.
Lerato Bereng: that reminds me of this exhibition called "Scratching the surface vol.1" by Gabi Ncgobo and Mwenya Kabwe. There was a performance where Kemang wa Lehulere started digging in a hole in the yard with an afro comb (also one of projects for Center for Historical Re-enactments)The hole got huge and he uncannily stumbled upon a skeleton inside. Became and excavation site of sorts.
Nathalie: yes i saw this one!!!
Lerato Bereng: Ok to back track a little.Well I like the idea of the interactive game, the idea of play as something child-like or simple, that actually often times isn't all that simple.
Nathalie: exactly. and to what purpose exactly? to reach something better? should there be an end/conclusion to the game? anyway so yes maybe a kind of set of rules, very simple
Lerato Bereng: yeah, the continuity of it is quite interesting. the no beginning, no end thing. Just a rules that somehow allude to greater sets of rules e.g. taxonomy that dominate our understanding and methods of engagement
Lerato Bereng: Lol. Just started humming "this is a song that doesn't end, it goes on and on my friend..."
Nathalie: or maybe a set of slow-moving actions that can be interfered or changed by the interventions of the viewer. again letting the viewer choose its set of rules giving this liberty only to realise the constraints and deceptions of it all. as nothing can be equalised, A=A is false (Leibniz is poisoning my mind, sorry)
Nathalie: hehe
Lerato Bereng: what did you say you were reading by Leibniz?
Nathalie: the principles of identity/continuity. its nuts. he's wrong on a number of things also....
Nathalie: also was thinking of simplicity as vaccuum, truth and reality and the discovery of the obvious. Of what's just in front of our eyes but are too blind to notice. I guess these could be words or images. Do you know this video of the basketball game:
The video clip you are seeking is a well-known test of perception.
Here are a few brief descriptions of this test:
"...In one study, perceivers are asked to watch a video tape of a
basketball game and they are asked to count the number of times one
team takes possession of the ball [Simons & Chabris, in press]. During
the film clip, which lasts a few minutes, a person in a gorilla suit
strolls onto the center of the court, turns and faces the audience and
does a little jig. The gorilla then slowly walks off the court. The
remarkable fact is that perceivers (including this author) do not
notice the gorilla. This is an example of what has been called
inattentional blindness..."
Perception, action,and nonconceptual content
http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/hurleysymp_noe.htm
"A demonstration of inattentional blindness goes something like this.
Viewers are asked to monitor three basketball players in white
T-shirts and count the number of times they pass the ball during a
video clip. Thirty-four seconds into this experiment, a person wearing
a gorilla suit walks through the game and even pauses to pound his
chest before moving on. Despite their vigilance, approximately half
the viewers never see the gorilla. Even after they are told about the
gorilla and shown the video, they refuse to believe it."
Lerato Bereng: ok well I tried. Watched half but buffers for too long.I saw the gorilla and counted 7 passes so far. But I like the element of trickery.It ties in with play really well and also alludes to that complexity that keeps rearing its head in simplicity. I also think that stuff that interrupts e.g the buffering or like you mentioned earlier the time delay in video Skyping add a further layer of trickery. I suppose like a magician, if you were watching a Skype performance by a magician and it kept stalling for a second or two
then you'd have reason to doubt the authenticity of it.
Nathalie: yeah thats true. And you would invent different scenarios in your mind to make u believe something else and then miss the obvious.
Lerato Bereng: This takes me back to one of the first thoughts about simplicity, the idea of the artist as magician... or the invention of a certain mysterious persona in order to maintain the illusion of complexity/genius. ok, starting to ramble and get lost in my own thoughts, but what you say about invention of scenarios is interesting. I like filling in the blanks.
More play.
x
Nathalie: simplicity requires the search into something.... but I guess very blindly. And I like that. Its a bit like the self-motion in performance as well.
Lerato Bereng: yeah, the delving into something because of a frustration with complexity, only to find that when the layers are peeled away, there's tons more to simplicity.
Nathalie: I think simplicity requires this complexity
Lerato Bereng: yep, simplicity actually has very little to do with being easy.
Nathalie: a bit like digging in archaeology.
Lerato Bereng: so in terms of a performance, which already technically is quite complex, how would you envision communicating the many layers we're starting to think about?
Nathalie: open conversation, or by having a set of rules to start some kind of a game where people can peel off the layers as it were.
Nathalie: using the virtual space as an archaeological site. digging for history.
Lerato Bereng: Interesting connection between technology vs archeology.
Lerato Bereng: that reminds me of this exhibition called "Scratching the surface vol.1" by Gabi Ncgobo and Mwenya Kabwe. There was a performance where Kemang wa Lehulere started digging in a hole in the yard with an afro comb (also one of projects for Center for Historical Re-enactments)The hole got huge and he uncannily stumbled upon a skeleton inside. Became and excavation site of sorts.
Nathalie: yes i saw this one!!!
Lerato Bereng: Ok to back track a little.Well I like the idea of the interactive game, the idea of play as something child-like or simple, that actually often times isn't all that simple.
Nathalie: exactly. and to what purpose exactly? to reach something better? should there be an end/conclusion to the game? anyway so yes maybe a kind of set of rules, very simple
Lerato Bereng: yeah, the continuity of it is quite interesting. the no beginning, no end thing. Just a rules that somehow allude to greater sets of rules e.g. taxonomy that dominate our understanding and methods of engagement
Lerato Bereng: Lol. Just started humming "this is a song that doesn't end, it goes on and on my friend..."
Nathalie: or maybe a set of slow-moving actions that can be interfered or changed by the interventions of the viewer. again letting the viewer choose its set of rules giving this liberty only to realise the constraints and deceptions of it all. as nothing can be equalised, A=A is false (Leibniz is poisoning my mind, sorry)
Nathalie: hehe
Lerato Bereng: what did you say you were reading by Leibniz?
Nathalie: the principles of identity/continuity. its nuts. he's wrong on a number of things also....
Nathalie: also was thinking of simplicity as vaccuum, truth and reality and the discovery of the obvious. Of what's just in front of our eyes but are too blind to notice. I guess these could be words or images. Do you know this video of the basketball game:
The video clip you are seeking is a well-known test of perception.
Here are a few brief descriptions of this test:
"...In one study, perceivers are asked to watch a video tape of a
basketball game and they are asked to count the number of times one
team takes possession of the ball [Simons & Chabris, in press]. During
the film clip, which lasts a few minutes, a person in a gorilla suit
strolls onto the center of the court, turns and faces the audience and
does a little jig. The gorilla then slowly walks off the court. The
remarkable fact is that perceivers (including this author) do not
notice the gorilla. This is an example of what has been called
inattentional blindness..."
Perception, action,and nonconceptual content
http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/hurleysymp_noe.htm
"A demonstration of inattentional blindness goes something like this.
Viewers are asked to monitor three basketball players in white
T-shirts and count the number of times they pass the ball during a
video clip. Thirty-four seconds into this experiment, a person wearing
a gorilla suit walks through the game and even pauses to pound his
chest before moving on. Despite their vigilance, approximately half
the viewers never see the gorilla. Even after they are told about the
gorilla and shown the video, they refuse to believe it."
Lerato Bereng: ok well I tried. Watched half but buffers for too long.I saw the gorilla and counted 7 passes so far. But I like the element of trickery.It ties in with play really well and also alludes to that complexity that keeps rearing its head in simplicity. I also think that stuff that interrupts e.g the buffering or like you mentioned earlier the time delay in video Skyping add a further layer of trickery. I suppose like a magician, if you were watching a Skype performance by a magician and it kept stalling for a second or two
then you'd have reason to doubt the authenticity of it.
Nathalie: yeah thats true. And you would invent different scenarios in your mind to make u believe something else and then miss the obvious.
Lerato Bereng: This takes me back to one of the first thoughts about simplicity, the idea of the artist as magician... or the invention of a certain mysterious persona in order to maintain the illusion of complexity/genius. ok, starting to ramble and get lost in my own thoughts, but what you say about invention of scenarios is interesting. I like filling in the blanks.
More play.
x
Monday, September 6, 2010
One thing I know about simplicity is that its f***ing hard! I've read some texts that lead right back to complexity. Here are some interesting thoughts.
"...the principle element in it seems to have been that the simple is what is spontaneous, free from artifice and sophistication...it is chiefly this view that Aaron Hill presents in his letter (1753)...'Simplicity,' he explains, is that natural and delightfully instructive elegance of unaffected passion...It is a weaker word for propriety, since everything is simple, that has nothing added contrary to its own quality, and everything unsimple, that has foreign and unnatural annexions." (Pg 6)
So anyway I started listing the possible connotations of simplicity because as I've discovered Simplicity is one slippery subject and as implied in the title "Featuring simplicity as an irrational fear", simplicity cannot be tied down to one particular definition.
I started thinking about Simplicity as an actor in the sense that the connotations of it are only as good as its best role, in Simplicity's case I'd have to say the first thing that comes to mind is the role of "Easy", and perhaps you'll agree that we all remember easy as that hot-pants-havin, potty-mouthed, attention loving floozy who seldom fits in with any crowd with which we are familiar.
Anyway, back to the list of Simplicity's various aliases which include:
Simplicity as that which is spontaneous/free of artifice; simplicity as fear; simplicity as a rejection of elitism; simplicity as instinctive; simplicity as an antonym to complexity; simplification as generalisation; simplicity as non-existent... Just a few ideas to think about. Lemme know if you can think of any more aliases.
Xoxo
Lerato Bereng
"...the principle element in it seems to have been that the simple is what is spontaneous, free from artifice and sophistication...it is chiefly this view that Aaron Hill presents in his letter (1753)...'Simplicity,' he explains, is that natural and delightfully instructive elegance of unaffected passion...It is a weaker word for propriety, since everything is simple, that has nothing added contrary to its own quality, and everything unsimple, that has foreign and unnatural annexions." (Pg 6)
So anyway I started listing the possible connotations of simplicity because as I've discovered Simplicity is one slippery subject and as implied in the title "Featuring simplicity as an irrational fear", simplicity cannot be tied down to one particular definition.
I started thinking about Simplicity as an actor in the sense that the connotations of it are only as good as its best role, in Simplicity's case I'd have to say the first thing that comes to mind is the role of "Easy", and perhaps you'll agree that we all remember easy as that hot-pants-havin, potty-mouthed, attention loving floozy who seldom fits in with any crowd with which we are familiar.
Anyway, back to the list of Simplicity's various aliases which include:
Simplicity as that which is spontaneous/free of artifice; simplicity as fear; simplicity as a rejection of elitism; simplicity as instinctive; simplicity as an antonym to complexity; simplification as generalisation; simplicity as non-existent... Just a few ideas to think about. Lemme know if you can think of any more aliases.
Xoxo
Lerato Bereng
So in response to what Donna said regarding the banalities of simplicity and complexity, I say: The whole reason for my interest in simplicity was in fact derived from my frustration with complexity. My understanding being that there is almost always a simpler way to discuss and engage with art that is often shied away from as a result of a fear of transparency (for lack of a better word). One often attempts to fog and mystify in order to create the illusion that their concept or creation transcends the simple or arguably the normal. This is not necessarily untrue, but at times it seems as though conceptualization gets tangled in its own web of complexity. So in a way, you could say that simplicity is what is natural/ normal/ instinctive, and complexity is only derived from repressing instinct.
Simply put in my opinion, the whole reason concepts and theories exist is to entice people to engage, discuss and experience the world in a new and less bland way. Why then would we use language as a tool to exclude and confuse? I think it is perhaps out of fear of mass consumption. The moment an object, a thought or a concept is made to be easily understood or related to, then it is seen as “watered down” and this very watering down means potential interest from larger, more general audiences, and not exclusively the close-knit network of art practitioners. It runs the risk of popularity, which puts in danger the very mystery that holds firmly the pillars of artistic practice. So, in a sense, simplicity ruptures the exclusionary realm of the art world.
It is true that it is a little challenging to begin a conversation on simplicity, perhaps owing to the fact that simplicity is not actually as simple as the term implies. Through our understandings of art and discussion, we are somewhat baffled when having to talk about something in an “easy” way. I find myself looking struggling to resist the temptation to search for complex theories to better understand simplicity. I’m reading a few things you might find interesting. See:
Simplicity, a Changing Concept
Author(s): Raymond D. Havens
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), pp. 3-32
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
x
Lerato Bereng
Simply put in my opinion, the whole reason concepts and theories exist is to entice people to engage, discuss and experience the world in a new and less bland way. Why then would we use language as a tool to exclude and confuse? I think it is perhaps out of fear of mass consumption. The moment an object, a thought or a concept is made to be easily understood or related to, then it is seen as “watered down” and this very watering down means potential interest from larger, more general audiences, and not exclusively the close-knit network of art practitioners. It runs the risk of popularity, which puts in danger the very mystery that holds firmly the pillars of artistic practice. So, in a sense, simplicity ruptures the exclusionary realm of the art world.
It is true that it is a little challenging to begin a conversation on simplicity, perhaps owing to the fact that simplicity is not actually as simple as the term implies. Through our understandings of art and discussion, we are somewhat baffled when having to talk about something in an “easy” way. I find myself looking struggling to resist the temptation to search for complex theories to better understand simplicity. I’m reading a few things you might find interesting. See:
Simplicity, a Changing Concept
Author(s): Raymond D. Havens
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), pp. 3-32
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
x
Lerato Bereng
Some simple thoughts about simplicity is that it exists in relation to complexity, and so in a way there would not be "simple" if "complex" did not exist and vice versa.
Which leads me to the next point, which is this performance piece. Even though the final execution aims to present itself as a "simple" piece, one has to acknowledge and bring to light the complexity of the process... of even us three finding it slightly difficult to do a thing as simple as starting a conversation.
So here I am wandering off to point out the obvious, and creating complex ways to speak of what we already know, or is it the other way round? Speaking simple ideas in a complicated way (by complicated I refer to the amount of sentences it has taken for me to put across such a simple point). Would like to play with this idea.
x
Donna Kukama
Which leads me to the next point, which is this performance piece. Even though the final execution aims to present itself as a "simple" piece, one has to acknowledge and bring to light the complexity of the process... of even us three finding it slightly difficult to do a thing as simple as starting a conversation.
So here I am wandering off to point out the obvious, and creating complex ways to speak of what we already know, or is it the other way round? Speaking simple ideas in a complicated way (by complicated I refer to the amount of sentences it has taken for me to put across such a simple point). Would like to play with this idea.
x
Donna Kukama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)