log rhythms revival
June 6, 2007
log rhythms has been the subject of many a revival discussion. aden brought the idea up at the meeting last thursday, and it seems there is enthusiasm for it. the good thing being there is a fair amount of work people have sitting around from the first aborted log rhythms. even better is that most of us are a lot more comfortable (at least conceptually) with what the performance would/could be a year down the track. thinking about it, log rhythms is really the best way we can make movements towards collaborative performance. i’m not sure to what level people share a desire to experiment with semi-spontaneous and semi-indeterminate group performance work. there are very concrete reasons why i want to lean in this direction, which at times i have attempted to express, but mostly failed. i think, for clarity’s sake, i should write down at length my allegiances to this type of art – but this is not the time.
the architecture of log rhythms, as it was, has and must be altered. as it existed prior to abortion, the log rhythms fetus had a single ‘conductor’ (i.e. dictator) to whom the burden of being a time fascist fell upon. also, the old version of log rhythms imagined only one log at a time (i.e. aden’s log for 20 seconds, then haylee logs for 20 seconds…etc). the stupidity of both these things became clear after miri and myself had talked at length about the idea. actually, miri and i have been having impromtu discussions about log rhythms for some time now. many of the discussions were about the ideological nature of the performance as an active game of participation, but i think we made pragmatic headway in terms of agreeing that there still needs to be a ‘conductor’, but that the conductor is drawn from the performing group, and the role alternates amongst the group. different conductors will produce different work from the group. Secondly, and though it seems somewhat obvious now, the conductor can trigger multiple logs at once (i.e. aden and haylee logging at once). these changes to the architecture eliminate the dictator/time fascist role from the work, which is good, but what replaces it?
there are two issues here. the first is that of the layering of logs over each other. this invites a poo metaphor. when layering the turd, should each individual turd be given its own place in the toilet water, floating and bobbing comfortably? or should it just layer one on top of the other, so the one below becomes obscured? * the issue is one of the performance ecology. is there an expectation, if not a rule, that each performer has to pay attention to what jackson mac low calls “the total sound environment” and logs with according decorum. in other words, do we make a pact to not drown each other out? or……
this leads to the second issue, which is an issue of relationship. what is the relationship of the conductor to the performers? how much control can the conductor exert? do we give the conductor the power to ask more volume of some and less of others (this would answer the above issue to some degree)? there are many questions in this area, most of which will hopefully answer themselves as we go. it would seem that there must be a level of “free will” for the performers, since they are the ones choosing what is being put into the collective piece, yet they concede to the conductor the freedom to choose when and for how long they log in.
what kind of relationship is this? are we satisfied with it?
what next?
nick.
* i guess it depends on the size of the toilet bowl and what you had to eat the day before.
i like the idea of having simultaneous log moments. it reminds me of cage’s idea of ‘anarchic harmony’. everyone will just need to be aware of the sounds being made, like you say, so that one log is not drowning out all others.
i’m not sure about the conductor role as yet — my hunch is that it should be one person for the duration of the performance, but that they should also be a logger. it may be difficult, but it could work nicely. for the role to be swapped around seems a little unclear in terms of necessity. is there any reason to swap? can’t one person design the score? maybe each time we perform the log rhythms, a different person could do it.
astrid
Had some things to say, got a bit carried away, deleted it for fear that I still don’t get it. Which I don’t. I’m not merely missing the “how” (that still eludes me but this is a pragmatic thing perhaps). I’m still lost on the “why”. Sorry!
cranks,
i understand your ‘why’ question, though i’m not entirely sure how to answer it properly.
nick is planning on writing an essay about collaborative, no-egoist and indeterminate artworks that have been done by various interesting people, including antin, mac low and the situationists. i dare say it will be a good read, and i don’t want to dilute the ideas too much here, but i might try to elaborate a little bit.
with dkdc, the rub has always been finding ways of producing work and engaging in performative action in a collective fashion. in some instances, the model has gone in a slightly unsustainable direction (i refer here to the infamous edit metropolis model atrocity, or for short, iemma). in general, much of brainstorming and indeed the problems, have been to do with sustainable, collective, dynamic and interconnected modes of art practice, language and performance.
the idea of organising an event, such as the log rhythms, has to do with a come-together of people’s work that can be played with in an indeterminate environment. everyone has an artwork, and they are performed simultaneously and in random order to produce, again with the cage quote, ‘anarchic harmony’. the performance is a sort of improvised brainshare of each person’s individual work, together producing a collaborative once-only score.
i imagine that we can make the log rhythms an extremely interesting piece, especially considering the charge of unknowningness that comes with semi-improvised or indeterminate performances. but beyond stimulation, i think that they would be helpful in encouraging further ideas for projects that have a similar, non-centred, non-directive nature.
hm. i’m all out of words. fuck me. this whole blogging consciousness seems to time out after ten minutes. does that make any sense? does anyone else care to comment?
astrid
OK, I had a fucking online run-in with a flake of a friend who likes pissing me off and it looks like it’s just happened again, so already I’m attacking this with a poor mindset, but what the hey. For the record the “why” sentiment was indicative of my general state of mind and maybe I should have been reading Camus instead of firing off unspecified criticisms that don’t mean nothing to nobody.
Also I’ve had a yard with Gaydorade who has cleared a couple of things up.
First, Astrid, good response. Thanks.
Now. That “log rhythms has been the subject of many a revival discussion” is new to me. As far as I knew it was still a kinda backwater idea that hadn’t gone anywhere. As for Aden raising it last week at the meeting, well it’s probably my fault I missed that as I must have being getting rimmed by Smithy or some shit. Apologies. I won’t harp on about some information inequality dynamic because well we have a blog now which’ll draw way too many reads and responses from me and hopefully everyone… But we *do* all (ALL, no individual criticisms here) need to share the product of nice little inspirational discussions we have one-on-one. That would be sweet as pecan pie.
I’m not sure if “log rhythms is really the best way we can make movements towards collaborative performance”. I think maybe the word “best” could be requalified as meaning “the option most prominent right now” or even “something to keep us occupied so we don;t do NOTHING”, which is still very important. I don’t think log rhythms is a bad idea and I have warmed to it since it’s introduction to us all, but I’d also like to know if anyone else is thinking about collaborative performance and how this might manifest. If as I suspect nobody has had any major brainwaves then woopee let’s go for it. It’s a good enough idea, it can be made to work, but I’m sus on this “best” call, and I think that may have ruffled my feathers yesterday. I am an angry chicken.
Third, I am sorry and I cannot water tis down at all, but whenever someone says/types “indeterminate” it means in my head “not knowing what the hell we are doing”. I do not mean this in a good spontaneous “freeing” kind of sense. I mean it in a bad, incompetent, poxy year-ten drama kind of way. I personally have no interest in “indeterminancy” because to me it just sounds like we’re just going to shrug our shoulders and wing it like a first year contemporary cultures prsentation… or Aden’s honours seminar presentations, haha. There will always be an unpredictable element in these things but personally slapdash for it’s own sake just doesn’t appeal.
Referring now to “the ideological nature of the performance as an active game of participation”. Here’s what I think about the ideological nature of the performance as an active game of participation: I don’t give a rat’s arse!! I don’t see what we’re trying to achieve as in any way interrogating any kind of ideology of performance. I’m interested in DKDC because I like fart jokes and because I know there are people involved who want to try ways of sharing their work, presenting it in ways that are “different” (if not to the entire world of art/performance/writing/poetry, then at least to us). I’m pleased to keep ideology aside, and you know what? I don’t really care if what we do imposes some regime of dialectical viewing or if it establishes an imbalanced notion of power-in-performance that is reminiscent of imperialist (or concomitant with? Sorry couldn’t resist) dominance. If people have a problem with what we do, they’ll leave, and that goes for more familiar modes as much as for the newer shit. I don’t say any of this do dicourage trying stuff out, just to assert – I’m interested in this because I want to just fuck around, not because of ideological problems with performance. If I was wrapped up in ideology I would join the Socialist Alternative and go sell some badges to stupid arseholes on King Street.
That’ll do me for now. the next time I post regarding this matter I will offer suggestions. In the meantime, listen to the hoohaas:
http://www.myspace.com/vote1thehoohaas
I appreciate your perseverence at this point. Cheerio.
cranks — no time to reply as yet, and seeing as though you’re currently en route to our house, there’s no need. but i must clarify one issue, that is, the issue of what we (i) mean by indeterminacy. i don’t mean unplanned or slapdash, but organised not by any logical or definite means … so with log rhythms, an indeterminate performance would be one where the order of performance, and the length of each, and the manner that they layer, would determined randomly, or else in an improvised manner at the discretion of the conductor. so the piece is not unplanned, on the contrary, i imagine there will be a lot of rehearsing and nuts’n'bolting, but the actual performance could and would be different each time.
this is a good discussion — stuff that needs to be layed out for a good tuck in. please, join in everyone.
astrid
Yes, hearty discussion indeed. But can I ask one thing: that we cease discussion of log rhythms until we actually do. Less talk, more do. I understand this is the idea for the next meeting, so let’s do it. Until then, I feel, all this discussion is ‘determining’ things that will be subject to vast, if not obliterating, change.
Feel the intense blistering waves of change plebs.
A
point taken, a, re log rhythms, but i feel that this discussion might be worthwhile to nut out in a blog-al context in terms of more general ideas and desires about performance and collectivity … ? any one want to take up a position and negotiate ?
astrid
I have to disagree with Aden. We should probably avoid each other until we have something we thoroughly disagree upon that is worth talking about. I think indeterminacy is the most important issue for us to consider, it’s pretty much all I think about seriously, that and trying to find girls who look like me but have dark hair to have sex with. Cranky – clearly a staunch supporter of indeterminacy as I see it – got it spot on when he says: ‘referring now to “the ideological nature of the performance as an active game of participation”. Here’s what I think about the ideological nature of the performance as an active game of participation: I don’t give a rat’s arse!! I don’t see what we’re trying to achieve as in any way interrogating any kind of ideology of performance. I’m interested in DKDC because I like fart jokes…’ That would be an indeterminate ideology. I think, if I think about it enough, all we need to bind us together, in or out of an ideological bandwagon, is the possibility that an interest in something like fart jokes is worth considering as worthy. And it is, fart jokes are interesting, as are a lot of other things. You can of course be indeterminate, without being indeterminate, that’s all I’m trying to get at, that’s how I like to attack things.
Fred just summarised his post from the next room as “not helpful at all.” Not surprising given Fred will be riding an esky lid, and getting tubular whilst sipping sangria when we’re worrying about this shit.
Nick wrote: “there are very concrete reasons why i want to lean in this direction, which at times i have attempted to express, but mostly failed. i think, for clarity’s sake, i should write down at length my allegiances to this type of art – but this is not the time.”
Why prolong the mystery? Don’t leave us hanging, suspense is killing me… Will it take the form of an indeterminate, non-spectacular manifesto with uneven spacing between the words?
More broadly – for better or worse, I rarely commit and execute my artwork until I know that I’ll be under the scrutiny of others in the near future. For instance I never put serious effort in to condensing all my music into a live set until I had a gig booked and had to sink or swim. I think it will be the same with log rhythms, particularly given that half the crew are moving into their second semester of honors. So maybe on Thursday it’s worth discussing issues like When? Where? as well as Why? Perhaps it should happen at TINA, in the shop front we were discussing…
in response to some but not all of the above:
i also disagree with aden, talk, in this scenario, is not cheap. the discussion, as cranky has exploded it into, is not really about log rhythms at all, but about the stakes people have in being part of dkdc things (that is – shit we do as creative mates). this is the discussion we had to have, and i think, should continue to have. this is not to avoid pragmatics. it is unpragmatic to ignore the fundamental issues which bind or separate us as collective makers-of-things, and as people. likewise, there is no wish to prolong mystery about my allegiance to this sort of art-making (indeterminate collective performance). the problem is practical: i’m still working through my ideas, and i can’t articulate them adequately, yet. i shall work on this pronto.
i think there has been a combination of mis-use (on my part) and overreaction to the word “ideology”. i’ve no interest in fighting for the surface of my language, but i will stick up for the poignancy of what i am trying to say, using different nomenclature each time if need be. i take cranky’s point that people don’t necessarily want to interrogate the metaphysical foundations of fingering the lint out of the belly-button. fair enough, but, there are reasons WHY people want to “do different shit” and “fuck around” whether we want to engage them or not. more importantly, when people get together to do “different shit”, or even the same shit, they do it in a particular WAY. and the way people do things, creative or otherwise, has massive implications for how things turn out. what i’m trying to say is that the way people interact in a creative community has a profound relationship to way they interact in the world at large. there is a social logic inherent to both creative practice and everyday life, and thinking about this is crucial, i think, if we want to work at being better people, treating each other better, not fucking each other over, whether personally or within a body politic. i think of log rhythms as experiments in social ecology, as making space for each other, dealing with the unexpected as it happens, in the moment, and doing the best you can.
Well what a shit-stirrer I turned out to be. Go team Cranks.
I’m stuck between the ‘talky-talky’ and ‘let’s just do it’ camps. I think we need to smack around our ideas of why we’re motivated to explore this territory and why we’re interested in bringing our work to audiences in ‘newish’ ways and hell even why we write full stop. It all bears discussion and yes one problem is we’ll all have varied approaches and opinions (this blog conversation being evidence enough of that!) so we’ll never all be at pure ease (except in the warm embrace of Tom Smith). So yeah we do need to ‘discuss’, because as a bunch of intelligent and creative types we kinda have an obligation to do so in relation to particular performance ideas or just in general. Good for us.
HOWEVER we also need to give it a bash and this ‘bash’ will no doubt be informed by discussion (because we’ll have hopefully settled on a position from where to start or at least a dog-rough consensus, maybe) but after that we just do it (I’m sponsored by Nike) and when the shit hits the fan we’ll all have heaps more to gnash over together. And it may be good. And it may be rotten. We won’t know that until it’s tried that’s for sure.
I’ve been stewing over the ‘conductor’ role because the role if not the concept seems pretty central to this whole game. I’ve been assuming that by ‘conductor’ we’re talking some ‘director’ style figure, fascist even (me! pick me!). So what if we rejiggle our understanding of this word (and as a corollary the ROLE) as more like something that conducts in the style of electricity, ie something that isn’t a director but more of a pathway or an important part of a circuit where other branches (energy being conducted) springs from certain points or intervals in the circuit? I’m imagining the conductor as a part of a system that the rest of the system depends on, and not just a ‘leader’. I’m imagining not what the conductor ’says to do’ as being important, but essentially what the conductor actually does as the trigger, ie behaviour and performance itself being the key thing that makes others act out their bits, not ‘prompts’.
Hmmmmmm. I can feel a fucking diagram coming on.
i second crankys redefinition of the ‘conductor’. it seems an excellent way to approach it.
and just quickly, i don’t really see the “talky-talky” and the “bash-bash” as being two different camps. neither one excludes the other, and both happen at the same time.
see you tonight where we can all fight it out to the death. long live our varied and potentially irreconcilable approaches!
a) The way I feel about performance is it’s about using your body, brain, noise making faculties and whatever else you can get your hands on to make something cool or say something worthwhile in an interesting way to other people with reasonable confidence that you aren’t going to piss them off by being a complete wanker, a complete idiot, a condescending cunt, or any halfway combination of above.
b) The way I feel about ‘collaborative artistic communities’ (yeesh) is that it should be about a bunch of people who wanna make something cool, and who at least partially share a definition of what ‘something cool’ is and how they would go about making it.
For ‘collaborative performance’ combine a and b. If we come up with a match then we have an exciting prospect. If not can we just go back to drinking, heckling television and generally appreciating each others individual creativity- pitching in together when the opportunity arises- without trying to harvest the sum total of everyone’s labor into a giant frozen stockpile of confused foodstuffs?
I don’t delineate between my creative life and the world at large. It would be impossible. This is not a Tonya Todmanesque lifestyle choice. I have no idea how to turn an old lampshade into a decorative douche. But I don’t think that every creative thing that I think or do should be given time and space and an audience. Why are we so bent on performance considering (as far as I know and with exceptions such as Miri) we are writers (as in people who are interested in thinking talking reading sitting around and occasionally doing something involving words on white space)? Did I miss the performance revolution?
I know that I have a tendency to be super conservative about these things but still all the world needs is another group of confused artists who don’t know what to do but have too many ideological problems with art to do something that other people can be bothered engaging with. And shit performance is the worst thing in the world. Worse than small pocks.
And just quickly re unscrunched: why are we creating yet another portal for Peter Minter to publish criticism????? (no offence to PM but he has plenty of room out there)
I think I have lost sight of the DKDC mission. Anyone who can help me out should refer to point b in response, or just give me a call and we can have a pleasant, rambling conversation with no minutes love doyle.
I like the Doyle definitions. It really doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. Might even write it down.
It’s good you don’t delineate between creative life and the world at large Doyle, I wish it was that easy for me. For some people creativity is their life, but some of us gloomy losers wrestle with it at times. But you’re right about every creative thing you say or do not necessarily needing to be aired in the wind – if we all did that it would stink. One of the basics of the “DKDC mission” might be a way to share crap that’s WORTH sharing. With the caveats of Doyle definition (a) kept in mind, that kind of fundamental would keep me happy enough.
Also, as writers (I still hesitate to call myself that for reasons not really worth going into) I think it’s a great thing to do as Doyle says writers do – “thinking talking reading sitting around and occasionally doing something involving words on white space”. Sadly I don’t seem to get much of that anymore. I know we don’t need DKDC to do this, but once again I’d be pleased enough if that’s what we did. Having said that Doyle I wouldn’t mind doing some thinking talking reading sitting around and stuff with white paper with you around. As your comments show you’ve got stuff to say I like to hear, shame I (we?) rarely get the chance nowadays… (good thing we got a blog now huh).
As for the “performance revolution”, well I dunno if it is exactly a revolution. I understand the discomfort in setting out to be performers as opposed to being writers or poets – fair enough, I totally share such misgivings. My basic grasp of the DKDC gist is this: try and present our shit (and again referring to Doyle’s point (a)) to other people in a way that tries to be a tad more innovative, not breaking the balls of the establishment or wowing the sauce outta everyone, just doing shit that’s newish and entertaining for ourselves perhaps? Once again, if that was the DKDC “mission” then I’d be happy enough.
Which is why I went to Rozelle the other night (with a freakin’ discussion paper for crying out loud, what was I on!?!?!) in spite of many misgivings about the log rhythms concept, not all of which are appeased, not to mention general misgivings about the notion of messing with language for the sake of it or being ‘performers’ or whatever. But I went, we talked a bit of crap, we tried some stuff out, and believe it or not I didn’t have a shit time. In fact in spite of aforementioned misgivings I was pleased to be doing what I actually engage with DKDC for – being stirred by a creative idea or two, even if I wasn’t totally mad about it, and seing what other people (dunno what THEY call temselves, writers, poets, performers, nobs, dunno dunno dunno) had to say and what they could do on the spot.
And if you’re not into it, and if you want to go for the collaborative model (Doyle point (b)) and indeed if you NEED to (because who knows you’ve probably got a healthier collaborative creative life than I’ve ever had…) then flag something else? We don’t have to be doing the same crap or working on the same thing. I don’t really recall much of great worth from my days at the Students’ Association but I do recall that a healthy collective should be able to survive different people doing different shit and in the end thriving because of it.
Sigh. I hate being in one of these “I totally agree but no I don’t but yes I do but no I don’t” kinda mindsets. But I think I’ve responded in the way I wanted. Thanks thogh Doyle, what the fuck you been doing anyway? You never came to visit the Mazzaville Manse, I am disgruntled at that. We could eat pork! Pork!
I forgot to mention I don’t know who Tonya Todman OR Peter Minter even are. I’m kinda happy enough with that.
tonya todman came up with innovative living ideas for a mid nineties lifestyle program. Peter Minter is a middle aged australian poet.
I din’t mean to get hung up on the ‘writer’ ‘performer’ type definition thing, i just meant that i have pretty much only seen ‘writing’(cept Miri and the Toms) from everyone who is in this group and not performance and i don’t think we need to push work into a performance context when it doesn’t call for it just because of ideology.
And yes, you’re right, i didn’t go to the meeting, and i barely ever do- I should turn up or shut up i spose. I do want pork though, by christ i do. when i find my phone again i will call you.
As for people within the collective doing their own thing, you are right there too, and at this point i don’t think i want to be in log rythms because i don’t get it. I can’t remember the last time i actually ‘got’ a DKDC concept, and i think its because i am not reading the same books as you guys or i’m just not that experimental most importantly i wasn’t there for the uptillthree excited conversation which is where the core of most ‘collaborative communities’ lies.
Uh, I don’t read them books nor was I up til three either! Haha.
I left some input for this wonderful and important discussion but I fear that I’ve overlooked the small but crucial step of pressing “submit comment” before I dashed off though this technological rhizome to laugh at white ninja. This might somehow add to the discussion on Joel’s blog about a posts, but probably not.
I’m sorry mum. I’m sorry Gough Whitlam. I’m sorry Charles Xavier.
the dkdc mission is only glimpsed on extremely foggy nights from the lighthouse in kiama, and even then only emerges as a poltergeist from the silence between waves crashing into the blowhole.