| |
From text to inter.textuality
Theatre and digital media _
Wolf Ka, res publica + LAB[au]
ABSTRACT:
The following text by the digital performing arts company res publica,
confronts theatre from a practical perspective with an approach informed
by theory of communication.
The first part of the article introduces res publica’s point of
view concerning performing art. This serves as a methodological framework
for the analysis of the recent work "Enjeux" (Inplay), an
interactive scenic device.
Keywords:
Scenic device, semiotics, digital scenography, scenic interface, hypertext,
interaction
General Terms:
Documentation, dance, theatre, digital media, technology
1. INTRODUCTION
The company res publica is concerned with the stage as space of representation.
Their performances precede neither from a body-oriented standpoint (dance)
nor a dramatic narrative oriented one (theatre). Their investigations
of stage question the construction and arrangement of space, the structure
of representation and the relationship of stage and public. Their centres
of interest are formalized in “scenic devices”.
The term of the "scenic device" is defined in opposition to
concepts of representation in terms of a metaphorical translation of
reality. The creations of res publica are scenic devices where the theatre
as place of performance as such, is analyzed by the transformation of
its setting. The performance is understood here in the sense of a cultural
practice and thus socially, historically and technologically determined.
In this perspective, the devices both deconstruct and reconstruct representation.
The scenic devices operate by the categories of space, interpretation,
public, time, and action.
In an historical perspective the work of Oskar Schlemmer, the founder
of the stage at the Bauhaus in Dessau, is an important reference for
the work of res publica and in particular for the creation “Enjeux”.
He was one of the first theatre artists who worked in a systematic and
radical way on the human body as a code, and the relation of Man and
Space. He proposed a perspective of body on stage as an abstract and
symbolic representation as opposed to the psychological and expressive
approaches of German Dance in the 1920th. He intended in his stage work
to represent the exemplary, the universal instead of showing the individual
or the typical. His theatre works did not want to be a copy of reality
but an artificial (art) product in order to bring up the essential,
and the (pure) idea. The term of “mobile Raumplastik” (mobile
sculpture) illustrates his concept of human body representation.
He examined the gesture/ movement as a relation of Man and Space on
an abstract level and not as a representation of human psychology. The
result is the formalization of human motion to geometrical forms. He
investigated the stage in his masterwork “ Triadische Ballet”
to study the relation of space and body; through the basic (triad) parameters
of form-colour-space, height-depth-width, and the three basic forms
of geometry: sphere-cone-cube.
He opposes the laws of the cubic space of stage to the laws of natural
man. If the space is adapted to man, the stage becomes naturalistic
or illusionist. If man is adapted to the cubic space the stage becomes
abstract. From his viewpoint, the laws of the abstract stage are the
invisible lines of planimetric and sterometric relationships. [3]
First published at COSIGN-2003,
09 – 12 September 2003, University of Teesside (UK),
School of Computing and Mathematics, Virtual Environments Group
Figure 1.
Oskar Schlemmer, “Figur und Raumlineatur” (Figure and spatial
delineations), 1924
Even if Schlemmer didn’t included technologies in his stage works,
his work is an important source in the history of digital performance
since he was studying the relation of different media in the context
of stage, without any metaphorical approaches. [2]
The idea of the scenic device, as well as the question of the integrating
digital media and the consequential re-organization of the semiotic
situation in the performance process will be discussed here with examples
from the performance “Enjeux”. Furthermore, it would like
to point out the value of both dance and theatre in the context of performance
where digital media are integrated.
|
go.to lab.files |
2. PAPER
The French company “res publica” developed the interactive
scenic device “Enjeu3+4x3” between 2001-2003 in collaboration
with the Belgian office for architecture and urbanismLab[au]. At the
centre of the scenic device is an interface, a multimedia front projection
onto a screen at the back of the stage. The projection is at the same
time the only source of light and the only scenography. In this way,
the projection is not just a visual representation but also a complex
device that plays on the space in the projection’s light cone.
The interface relates the screen projection to the space of stage. The
public manipulates a trackball interface and consequently they also
alter the space of representation.
Figure 2.
Scheme of the technical device.
From the
beginning of the performance one trackball circulates in the audience.
Since the trackball is lit up and the movement of the cursor is always
visible on the screen, the public can easily interact and participate
at the action at any moment. In the beginning of the performance, the
public just choose a sequence by a menu and progressively manipulate
the whole sequence.
The creation shifts the status of the public from a group of individuals
to an assembly, integrated in the construction of the content and the
construction of the representation.
In order to evaluate this idea and the idea of a hyper-textual dramaturgy
of representation, a meta-text layer is integrated into the architecture
of the interface. After each sequence the meta-text layer appears. Every
title of the played sequences is written in horizontal from left to
right on the screen. In this way, the public sees the choice they have
made.
From a theatre-oriented
perspective the interface has the status of a text. The shift of a linear
to a hypertext structure, the extension of a mono-semiotic vocabulary
(alphabet) to a poly-semiotic vocabulary (alphabet, graphics, picture,
sound etc.) and the autonomous presence of the text in the process of
representation, that is independent from mediation of the dancer (as
opposed to a dramatic text or a partition of dance or music) are the
guiding principles in the theoretical approach of “Enjeux”.
This scenic device questions the relation of two different systems of
signs: the graphical interface and the performers representation. The
iconographical language of the interface and its consideration as an
architecture is necessary to establish an interaction between stage
and public. The relevance of the overlay of the two systems (graphic
and performance) depends on the ability of the signs to institute codifications.
The interface refers to graphic, linguistic, iconographic signs and
the second system refers to the expressive abilities of the human body.
The purpose is to link these two systems in order to allow the public
to intervene in the process of representation. This means that the question
of ‘textuality’ in this performance is based on the creation
of codes that are proper to this multimedia-light space and to assign
them to codes of human expression.[1]
The dramaturgy is based of the stage-specific mediated situation, as
a spatially and temporal limited action carried by performers. The categories
of space (where), performer (who) and action (what) compose a three-part
dramaturgy. Each part is composed by several sequences, which then develop
into their own optional or hyper-textual dramaturgy.
In the following a short introduction to each of the three parts institute
the general idea that are illustrated by two sequences.
2.1
Part A - WHERE
The sequences of part A, introduces elementary codes based on the light
cone, the screen, the stage and the performer. A vocabulary is introduced,
referring to lexical, graphical and iconographic codes, which create
spatial situations in order to evoke imaginary narratives and physical
settings. Thus, the inter-play of these various code-languages within
a sequence is used to construct a situation, an interactive scenic space
and introduces of our first narrative: WHERE.
The public has the option to choose four of six sequences by a menu
on the interface. Each title of sequence refers to an idea of space
questioning the complex relation between the representational and concrete
situation of the stage. After the fourth sequence the interface skip
to part B. The fourth sequence that is selected will define the vocabulary
for Part C.
2.1.1 Part
A example "In transit"
The projection of the word 'airport' introduces a place and a situation
influencing the audience's reading of the stage. The sequence is based
on a play of associations with the word 'airport'. When the dancer’s
bodies intercept the projected letters, the reading of the word changes,
as does the place and situation it suggests. This inference continuously
constructs and deconstructs the scenic space between the material space
of projection and a suggested one.
Using a “spatial language” (choreography) the dancer writes
new semantic connections to the “space of departure” by
using his body as a medium. In this way the public reads one letter
after the other of P-A-R-T-I-R (to leave in French), composed with the
letters of A-I-R-P-O-R-T. The letters on the bodies travel from the
ramp to the screen and translate the semantic content of the word into
a choreographic language. Later, the dancers “write” the
words "Rio" and "Porto". The sequence plays with
the imaginary and material situation of the stage and sets it in relation
to a linguistic and chorographical code.
Figure 4.
Sequence In transit : “Rio” on the body of the dancers
2.1.2 Part
A example "in front of"
The sequence “In front of” sets the space of the stage in
relation to the performer using a graphic code. The spatial construct
of the sequence is based on a projection of animation composed by RGB
coloured rectangles and their synthesis (white). The interface projects
rectangles at a regular frequency of 10 seconds in four different sizes
and in the four colours (RGB and white). The bodies of the Performer
intercept the rectangles. Each size of rectangle corresponds to a position
in the space, and a sound of a 4-tone chord. The smallest rectangle
is reflected directly at the screen, the largest at the ramp and the
two furthest at a distance in between, in order to reflect the same
size of the rectangle. Because of the diagonal cone of projection the
bodies intercept the light at different heights, depending on the distance
to the projector (falling onto the head, shoulder, belly and hipbone).
Each colour corresponds to a body position such as front on, back, profile
left and right. From this codification that incorporates space, colour,
form and parts of body, the stage becomes a choreographic play of 4x4x4x4
units, comparable to a Mondrian human-space composition.
Figure 5.
Sequence “In front of” with scheme of projection
2.2
Part B - WHO
The second part of the performance examines the status of the performer
on scene – “WHO”, in relation to their representation
on stage and on the screen/interface. While in part A the four performers
have been identified through denoted codes: numbers and positions (for
example, Number 1 - Position 1 – Colour red), the second part
constructs a specific association to the performers (a connoted code)
through distinct actions and interactions, thus shifting the notion
of figurant to the one of performer.
The relation between the performer, the stage and the action is realized
according to visual communication codes (both connoted and denoted)
and the visual language moves between icons, symbols and images - figurative
or non-figurative codes.
The second part establishes specific relations between the public and
the four performers. A direct interrelation is used to enlarge the interaction
between the public and the stage, from choosing different sequences
to interacting inside the sequences with the performers.
The overall concept of the second part: “WHO” allows the
public to choose between four non-interactive solos, introducing a specific
code of each performer. After the first solo, the public has the option
to explore these specific codes by playing interactively with them.
By choosing “No” the second solo of the performer is removed.
2.2.1 Part B example „Number 3“ (simple solo)
The sequence confronts a scenic representation with a textual one through
the projection of the sentence 'JE JOUE MANU’ (I play Manu) in
white letters on black background. While moving backward in the projection's
light cone, the actor intercepts the letters of the sentence on his
body, inscribing on it "MANU" / "MAN" / "NU"
(naked in French) whilst successively taking off an item of clothing.
In this manner he transforms the sense of the sentence from 'Je joue
Manu’ (I play Manu) to 'Je joue Man’ (I play man) and -
'Je joue nu’ (I play naked) and yet the performer stays, through
his actions, coherent with the sentence written on the stage.
Figure 6.
Sequence “Number 3”
Does the actor play Manu - does he play a man - does he play naked or
is he a man whose name is Manu who is naked on the scene? By the use
of this textual combination the status of play in scenic space as one
of action and representation is formalized - a relation which according
to the introduction of interactivity gets at once more open because
of the direct relation established between the public and the action/representation
of the actor.
2.2.2 Part
B, example “Make me moving“(interactive solo)
The public interacts with the dancer through a schematic but articulated
graphic of a skeleton, projected on the screen, where it’s manipulation
leads to a successive shift from a figurative to an abstract representation.
The dancer directly transposes the public’s interaction into body
movements but in addition the dancer transposes more abstract ideas
such as flexibility, lightness, speed. The dancers movements always
depend upon the graphic's distortion and the way the public is manipulating
the skeleton. The dancer worked out during the rehearsals different
approaches of translating the graphic distortion into a chorographical
language. As there are infinite possibilities the way the public act,
the action/representation is improvised.
Figure 7.
Sequence “Make me moving”
The cartographic mapping of the manipulations / movements thus becomes
the result of establishing a relation between the public and the dancer,
introducing 'dance' not only as a body moving in space but also its
relation to gesture (figurative - physical) and composition patterns
(geometry - abstract). In this way, the sequence enlarges a textual
and graphical vocabulary of interactivity to include gesture, expression
and movement.
2.3 Part C - WHAT
The PART C examines the action on scene - “WHAT” - through
the space of interaction and the interpretation. While intervening directly
on the projection/ scenography, the audience determines the sequence,
the duration of the sequences and the modalities of interpretation.
Each sequence explores the space and interpretation, parameters introduced
in PART A and the PART B. The interpretation of the sequences of PART
C is coded, but their realization remains to the result of the public’s
intervention. The end of the PART C is conditioned by the duration of
the performance. Once this time is passed, the public can decide to
continue the performance, in which case, the sequences of part C are
again proposed, until the spectator chooses the final “no”.
2.3.1 Part
C example "Mix it up"
The sequence “Mix it up” is based on the same code as the
sequence “In front of”. Four rectangles in the elementary
colours and white establish a basic vocabulary of postures, the dancers
arms forming a geometrical correlation to the projected rectangle. (Red
= diagonals from left to right, green = horizontal, blue = diagonal
= from right to left and white = vertical.) The size of the rectangles
determines the distance to the screen.
Figure 8.
Sequence “Mixitup”
In contrast to the sequence from part A where the changes of the rectangle
was a written-partition, the animation in part C depends on the position
of the cursor on the axes x and y. Each rectangle behaves differently
concerning the changed position of the cursor. When the rectangles are
overlapped, fields of its colour-synthesis appear and give the dancer
the possibility to change the colour field. In this way the movements
from left to right of stage depend more or less of the choice of the
dancer, the movement from front to back depend on the publics manipulation.
The codification of colour, space and body permits a real-time notation
of choreography formalized by a dynamic light-scenography. The choreography
is the common result of public and dancer over the codification of space
and body by colour and form.
2.3.2 Part
C example "Playball"
In the corresponding sequence of part A “left-right“ a small
white dot crosses the black screen from left to right giving the illusion
of a tennis ball where the graphic layout refers to the one of the first
video games “Pong”. The same graphic sign is used in the
sequence "Playball", whereby the ball movement is this time
not programmed but is caused by the cursor movement manipulated by the
public. Left or right movement of the mouse moves the light cone on
the horizontal axe, the movement upward or down increased and/or makes
the light cone smaller. The public is invited to play and this possibility
is introduced by the title: Playball = play with the ball/ performer.
In the sequence of A the light cone produced the illusion of a ball.
In the sequence "Playball" the relation of material and illusionary
space is reversed. The (play) ball becomes on its semantic level a light
spot, which is what it is.
Figure 9.
Sequence “Playball”
The play of the sequence consists of the performers moving in the dark
stage and taking positions related to past sequences. As soon as the
light cone lights them up, the performer freezes to a picture. The resulted
"flash backs" re-contextualize past situations, positions,
gestures, etc to new semantic associations which are proposed by the
performers and selected and cut by the public.
3. CONCLUSION
The performance “Enjeux” and this theoretical reflection,
aimed to contribute to the understanding of how technologies modify
cultural practice by integrating an interface in a communicational situation
within theatre representation. The analysis of “Enjeux”
deconstructed a textual based representation and illustrated how the
integration of digital media modifies the status of text, performer
and public. It illustrated that the integration of new (or simply other)
media provokes new plays or modalities of representation.
Furthermore, this perspective of theatre attempts to demonstrate that
a semiotic approach to theatre in both its theoretical and practical
dimension could be fruitful without literature based or narrative approaches.
The text wants to propose a critical view in the field of theatre and
media, by focusing on the space of representation as a category for
theatre analysis. The text questions scenic representation not as a
discipline of theatre or dance, and integrates body and text (and media)
into a non-hierarchical relation.
The analyse of the scenic devices within “Enjeux” aims also
to document that the “digital paradigm” could be a collective
experience in a physical space instead of an individual experience in
front of a computer screen. By integrating the public in the constitution
of the representation, the work questions also the social dimension
of digital media within the symbolic level of theatre. The shift from
a public assisting a performance to a public that participates by manipulating
the basic parameters of representation becomes especially crucial at
the moment when members of the public have to decide to end of the representation.
As it is only one person who takes the responsibility for the rest of
the public to continue or to end the performance, there is often a moment
of negotiation where the spectators starts to express their agreement
or disagreement. By moving the cursor from yes to no and back to yes
the person with the trackball plays with these reactions . In this moment
the communicational situation alters to a play between the one with
the trackball and the others, but without ever leaving the framework
of negotiating the condition of theatre representation.
Figure 10.
Interface “The end”
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
to thank Helen Evans for the review and correction of this article.
5. REFERENCES
[1] About Textuality, theatre and new media: Bauchard, F. Le théâtre
et les nouvelles technologies. In éc/arts, publishing site, 2002,
160-165.
[2] About Schlemmer as avant-garde of the notion of digital space: Norman,
S. J. Corps / espaces interactifs. in___ 156-165.
[3] Schlemmer in general: Schlemmer, Raman C, Oskar Schlemmer, Musées
de Marseille reunion des Musée nationaux Musée Cantini,
1999.
|
>>