meeting this sunday, 29 july
July 23, 2007
[by astrid]
after a braindead discussion last night, we noted that sundays are a problem for energy and chutzpah — most people are shells of men/women by sunday night, and after a meal and a couple of longnecks, we can’t even muster a giggle at aden’s moose-knuckle. however, every week night proposes problems also, so we’re going to try an earlier sunday time (no later than 6pm) and have a hour/hour and a half jam session and then dinner at 8ish, with a nice relaxed descent into digestion and friendly chatter.
so, this sunday, 6pm at the stanmore manor. bring a found-object to log as well as the beginnings of ideas of a composed log material.
cheers.
[posted by nick]
below is the sketch pâté made of the wire-framing for the website about a week ago. i’m going to post a summary of the issues and discussion points below to hopefully stimulate input. before that i just wanted to clarify the relationship between dkdc and the on-line journal. the journal was not conceived of as a dkdc thing. but seeing as the editors (tim wright, fred lee, astrid and i) are who we are, of course we wanted to (or rather needed to) include our creative peers into all levels of the process of doing it. dkdc meetings and the blog have served as the point of communication for this process, which could very easily give the impression that the website is a dkdc thing – but it’s not, or not entirely. i have been thinking of it like this: the website is it’s own entity, being made by people who are also involved (at whatever level) with dkdc, but not as dkdc. this is not intended to exclude in an way, simply differentiate purposes, and indeed the more involvement, from a tiny observation to becoming involved in editing, is warmly (if not desperately) welcome.
1. the front page of the site. contains a navigation bar to all areas of the site. this page contains basic information and navigation, and it’s most obvious (as in biggest sized) link will be to:
2. the feature page. this is the incorporation of joel’s excellent idea of having a page where material from the greater archive is put onto the feature page, which will have a cool template modeled on the electronic literature collection. tim wright, pâté and i worked from the assumption that we would have 4 works on the feature page, and these could either rotate in groups of 4 or one could knock another one off. the feature page has a search bar, within the navigation bar, that searches all of the content. this navigation bar also links to:
3. the archive and the 4 different ways of searching. 3a. by categories/keywords: this form, again modeled off the electronic literature site, uses a series of categories that are defined and then lists links of all the works that come under this category. individual works may appear numerous times within the categories list. i am excited about this because we can encourage people who submit work to also contribute to the making of categories, indeed the creation of new ones, so that works can be subjected to numerous forms of definition and re-definition in relation to one another. 3b. by media: groups work by media type. 3c. by author: alphabetically i guess, or by size of wang. 4d. (meant to be 3d.) by title: again, alphabetically?
4. content page: the page which the work itself on it. design-wise, there will be a general design template (for text, or video, or sound, etc) which work can easily slot into. but perhaps we should also be allowing for the look of the content page to be controlled by the artist, especially in the event of submission from design and or programming savvy people (timrox & pâté… is that going to be a problem?). at the end of each work, we were thinking or having the:
5. Comments/discussion. Below each work is a blog-style place to post comment and foster discussion about work. Given the linearity of blog comments, pâté suggested perhaps incorporating a threaded comments function (an example of which is at digg.com). so if the work stimulates a number of different discussions, it can be threaded rather than all happening haphazardly. this was thought as a potential replacement for a separate forum/blog. 5a. should there be a forum or a blog as part of the on-line website, separate from comments about each work, but where other discussions could take place?
6. info page/how to/submissions/contact: the page where the website explains itself, explains how it works and also how to contact the editors for submitting, or ‘hitting that joel guy up for a bonk.’
who we are(n’t)
July 17, 2007
[posted by nick]
i only realised yesterday that i owed the tina organisers an email with bio’s and technical requirements for tina, etc. i had to send the email off today since it was the (second) deadline. consequently, i cobbled together a group biography for dkdc. i post it here to share, and also to gauge levels of (dis)satisfaction:
dkdc is a loosely formed group of social and creative friends who met, for the most part, through studying at the University of Technology, Sydney. dkdc grew out of the occasional performance nights held at UTS in 2005 & 2006, and tended naturally toward diversity, collaboration and experimentation. The majority of the group are trained as writers, who in varying ways and for varying reasons are interested in ways of writing that are open, social and collaborative rather than isolated and solitary. This openness aims to be as inclusive of other creative practices as possible, so as well as writers, the group includes a sound artist, a dancer, a designer, a filmmaker, a programmer and a musician.
log jam
July 9, 2007
[by nick]
last thursday at the graham avenue branch we had heaps of fun, or at least i did, and we made great progress on log rhythms. we were very fortunate to have both tim rox and miri present for playtime, both of whom have background and knowledge of improvised performance. i think their presence helped push us to the next level. so thanks to them. i wanted to outline the variations of log rhythms that we now have on the experimental table, discussing the issues surrounding each (as i understand them) and offering the order of these variations as a potential order in which the performance might happen. these models and names of models are the result of crankys discussion paper presented in rozelle about a month ago, and the subsequent trials of and additions to these models.
model 1: the central text generator, or the chance generator.
in this model a central text is used as the “conductor” around which the “loggers” orientate or “trigger” their logs. the central text is required, it seems, to be made up of a string of repeating words or numbers, the order of which alters. each logger chooses one of the triggers, and no-one chooses the same one. it has been suggested that numbers work best as the central text, in that they are the easiest to hear amidst the total group sound. in trialling, this model has been the most likely to become cluttered and descend into shouting over one another. three things have been suggested in this regard. firstly, the encouragement to silence if the total performance needs it. secondly, having a larger number of words or numbers in the central text which weren’t don’t act as triggers. and third, reading the central text at a much slower rate. is it left to the reader of the central text to decide the tempo?
[a thought: perhaps the tempo of reading the central text could be itself subject to chance. one way would be to establish a tempo range, i.e. a faster and slowest tempo at which the performance still "works", i.e. doesn't become incoherent. we could have as a range, for example: fast, medium fast, medium, slow, very slow, extremely slow. if we said that we intend to use all of these tempos within the one performance, we could randomise this order.]
model 2: the conductor rules.
someone takes on the role of the conductor, and freely controls who logs when. potentially, they also control volume and tempo. the next question is, how do they trigger each log? when joel was conductor at rozelle, he used names. astrid stumbled upon another way at marrickville last week, when she used numbers, ostensibly to trial model 1, but ended up knowing each loggers number trigger, and thus conducted the piece. the most obvious issue with this model is the power ceded to the conductor, and how that sits within the wider idea of the performance, and it’s collectivity.
model 3: the map
someone, prior to the commencement of the performance, draws a map (like a single line graph) visible to everyone, and the performers interpret the map and guage from each other where on the map the performance is. there is wide ranging possibilities in this model, depending on how much the map is left to interpretation. a structure to inform the performers of where on the map the performance is at has been suggested to reduce differences in interpretation. alternatively, it has been argued that the variations in interpretation are precisely what’s interesting about this model, and rather than eliminating them, work with and revel in them.
model 4: the jam.
we tried this as the last thing of the night, and despite the general tiredness, it was the one that, i sensed, really excited everyone and made the night really worthwhile. interrelationships between loggers and their logs began to emerge and play themselves out delightfully. there was synchronism, contrast and dynamic beginning to happen. this was because we reached a new level of listening to each other and to the total group sound. i wonder how other people feel about this, but it felt to me that the free jam has the potential to be the pinnacle realisation of the log rhythms project.
an interesting variation: the nemesis.
as suggested by tim rox, in reference to something that the sydney based splinter orchestra do, we can have a variation, for any of the above models, whereby each logger chooses another logger to be their nemesis. one way to realise the nemesis variation is to say that: you can never be logging whilst your nemesis is logging. It seems to me that there could be many fruitful ways of having a nemesis, perhaps only excluding the type where you try to shout over the top of your nemesis.
post-script:
pinnacle or no, i think it’s a good idea to rephrase something that diSmithive said about improvised jazz. these jazz musicians come to the improvisation from a basis of high skill and discipline in their instrument, and that this discipline and skill is a large part of what allows the freedom and comfort within the improvised performance. in other words, we need to hone our logging material and becomes experts in how we log it.
it’s good for a snack, it fits on your back, it’s LOG LOG LOG!
I may seem to be the Baron of Stupid Questions in this post. But when compelled to ask an apparently dumb question I have always assumed that there must be someone out there dumber than me and that they at least might profit from it too… Um… Somehow, somewhere within this year long discussion about logrhythms I missed the bit where someone described what logging is.
What is logging? What isn’t logging for that matter? I’m assuming it has something to do with some sort of performance. That’s right , right? also, Where do I put my log and how much KY jelly can DKDC commit to providing?
It’s lo-og, lo-og, it’s big, it’s heavy, it’s wood. It’s lo-og, lo-og, it’s better than bad, IT’S GOOD!
WANG.
The conductor is what.
July 2, 2007
[by Cranky]
Right now the conductor as I understand is a director-style figure, everyone else seems to just slot in around this person somehow. The way they fit seems to be entirely at the discretion of the conductor/boss. The boss says (however they say it): “number 1, go now! number 2, go now! number 3 and number 4, go now! number 2, shut up! number five, go now! number 5 and number 1, shut up!” etc etc.
This makes the whole game a game more or less owned by the boss, their manner of ‘conducting’ is at their discretion (indeed the ingenuity of this could make or break the game as it now stands) and everyone else seems to slot in at the behest of the boss. This model makes everyone peripheral, more or less, which I don’t think is great. Furthermore the way the individual ‘logs’ rap together depends on how good the boss is basically. The individual bits could each be pure genius but if the boss doesn’t have an enthralling and ingenious way of prompting everyone, or if the boss through the conducting produces a mishmash that just doesn’t work in a performative sense then that’s it, craphola. Unless experimenting (and failing) in public for it’s own sake is your major source of satisfaction then I’m not sure it’s so great to go along with a model of the boss/conductor as it stands presently.
To me there’s a number of things we can/should do to rejiggle the scenario at this point to avoid a bad outcome. I propose each of these with the hope that they will increase the group ownership of the ‘conducting’ thing (rather than leave it totally at the discretion of one person). That way if it all flops we all need to re-evaluate, and not just go “dude that was crap” to the boss-person.
ONE: we all collaborate like motherfuckers and devise an excellent mode of conducting. We do this BEFORE someone is elected/chosen/self-nominated as the boss. That way (in theory) anyone can be conductor, in theory a name could be pulled from a hat on any given night and whammo! They’re the boss for the next agreed-upon period of time (ten minutes, half a performance, the net twelve billion performances, whatever). This agreed-upon mode of conducting should emphasise creativity so that the boss isn;t left in a purely directorial or practical role.
EXAMPLE: the group decides that the mode will be reading their work or performing it as they normally would, however whoever is elected boss must specify particular words that start/stop the others. For example, the boss tells everyone a different start word and stop word that occurs in their log, everyone then has to begin and pause their logs whenever those words arise in the boss’s own logging. You could have words that tell everyone to start or pause, words that tell every second logger to start or pause (or either), or any variety really…. Now this may work, it may work in part, it may not work, maybe everyone will dig it but maybe nobody will, I’m not sure I do. But the idea is to embed the prompts within something creative, rather than have a series of flash cards or hand signals or something (unless the boss’s log is a whole poem read in Auslan or if they happen to be a dancer?!?!)
TWO: We reverse the process, ie a boss is elected, then everyone else listens/watches the boss’s logging once or twice, and selects for themselves (ie not telling anyone else) moments they would like to start and pause, eg they choose words, gestures, moments that seem to fit snugly with their own logging… This may seem to defeat the purpose of being “indeterminate” (gag barf vomit… sorry…) but think about it, if nobody else knows where people will start/finish/pause etc then all sorts of confusing shit coul happen. Whether “confusing” is the particular brand of “indeterminacy” (BBBLLLUUUUEEEERRRG GGHHH!!!!!!!!!) we’re after is another matter entirely. This way also removes a lot of the ‘power’ from the hands of the boss figure and delivers it in a (potentially) poisoned chalice way to the loggers themselves, even though the boss’s logging is still integral.
EXAMPLE: I get up and perform my log as the designated boss, I say the words “Every day I vex about sausage on bread and I always smell onions when I’m in bed I wish I was dead I wish I was dead put a bullet in my head” over and over for three minutes. Someone decides to themself that they’ll start every time they hear the word “vex” and finish the first time they hear the word “wish”, someone else also decides to themselves they’ll start with the word “sausage” and wait until the next time they hear “sausage” until they stop, then they start again with the next “sausage”, then the third logger may start their bit at “bread”, pause at “onions”, start at “bed, pause at “bullet”.
THREE: the boss figure is moved throughout a single performance. So say if nine or ten of us are involved, we choose three people to be bosses and the rest are ‘mere’ loggers. I guess this could be done with either of the above two proposed modes. If we tried multiple bosses with the first above, then the bosses would each have to fit with the group-proposed mode of conducting however may have the discretion between themselves of deciding who prompts who, or maybe one boss would be the one who gave “starting” triggers to the loggers, one would be in command of the “pause” triggers, and one would be in change or “everyone start/stop”. It could get strange. OR if we incorporate mode two and three then individual loggers decide or themselves who they’ll be triggered by and when and then let the bosses figure out among themselves how/in what order they’ll do their ‘boss logs’. The boss figures themselves could work in an integrated way, ie they could trigger each others’ logging and let whatever devised method of triggering the others take its course.
“EXAMPLE: I really don;t think I could be bothered trying to make an example out of this. But I think the best bit of a ‘multiple boss’ scenario is that the onus isn’t purely on one boss, and that we are dealing with a model of conducting that involves offshoots and branches and roots (hehe) in a multi-layered sense… could be pretty hard to pull off (hehe) in practice, but as some have said we should try before we buy (or don’t buy?).
Let me clarify that these proposals are just that. I won’t cry if they get chucked out. They do not represent a desire to ‘organise’ a previous proposal that rested on an indeterminate (heave chuck spit) notion of performance. I *think* what “indeterminate” (yargggghhh) means is a way we can all pursue our own shit within a framework that accommodates both individual work and brings it all together in a flexible way, in a way that can change from day to day and does not propose one person perform the same function within that framework. I think. It all sounds complicated and pretty systematised I know, but did anyone imagine that it would be simple?
That’s all for now. Have a nice thingy.
