How does fixed medium documentation change artistic practices?
- new art forms emerge:
film, recording, video/TV and digitally based new media
- there is a range of
approaches to the use of fixed media, along the
continuum:
Documented
performance <------> Document
as performance
- “documented
performance” implies a certain neutrality to
the capture, but in fact is influenced by every
aspect of the documentary medium:
- note that early
anthropological field practice "documented" (and
distorted) folk music with notation, then recordings
- “document as
performance” is often team produced, and based on
standardized production values and practices;
- preferred placement
along the continuum differs by genre; e.g.
- the historical
development of each of these formats parallels changes
in listening habits and preferences (Thompson, Sterne,
Simes, Katz, et al.) and perhaps performance practice as
well
- recordings in turn
influence future generations of live performers,
particularly those involved with improvisation, aural
tradition and so on
Contemporary
art music practice today
- acoustic – mixed (live
+ electronics) – electroacoustic (fixed medium and live
performance) – new media (cf. Manovitch)
- note archival problems
associated with each of these: succession of formats
(e.g. vinyl, tape, DAT, CD, digital files) all of which
need machines to read them
- with improvisatory
forms, the choice of “fixing” a live performance vs
maintaining the machines required to produce the live
work (can the latter “migrate”?)
- multi-media/new media
works multiply the problems of documentation
- some works may be
fixed; others indeterminate, algorithmic, stochastic,
interactive, distributed (i.e. internet based),
conceptual, etc.
- fixed medium works,
however, can lead back to live performance (diffusion)
interpretations
- physical survival
of art works vs their cultural
survival when marginalized
- does digital data and
software make cultural artifacts more ephemeral or give
potential longevity?