pizoi/ah: The Performed Text (art thing)

[A/H Index] [^^Terms MASTER Index]
The Performed Text
See also: -[Performed texts CONTENT]-

See also: [Performance Art] (art technique/thing)
[Text as art material]
[Coerced performance]

[Performance Absurd]
[Dada]
[Dadaism] (an art "ism")
[Performance: Frank]
[ "PARTS ONE, TWO, THREE" ]

[Performed Art]
[The Performed Art Act]
[The Performed Art Technology]
[Performed danse]
[Performed Art: Filmed]
[The Performed Score]
[Performed Theatre]
[The Performed UFO's] (and esp, etc)
[The Performed WEB (including programming)]

[]
[Interventionist Art]
[(art) concepts]
[Art MovementsStreet Art]
[Fluxus]
[Street Art]

The Performed Text

See also: -[Translation]- (A/H entry)

An interesting "game" originaed when the first ideas of machine
translation came into being. This "game" was (as far as i know; email: fleeding@hotmail.com)
first mentioned in Philip K. Dick's "The Galactic Pot Healer".

You take a text, translate it (via "babelfish" or other
translation program) into another language, and then into
a different language, and so forth, finally translating
into the original language; and voila! The text has
mutated. (This is similar to (again PK Dick) short
story "The Preserving Machine" where texts (eg, musical
scores) are translated into actual animals - so that
music will survive; cf/qv with the film "National Treasure").

Below is a sample of this (i assume; else it;s a "work
of genius")....

Regardless, i came across this (and after a few minutes
of confusion (an alternate name for entropy; n'est pas? ;)

-[Would the world be better off with 90% of humans gone?]-

For faculty affairs at st edwards university
on their inclass evaluations celebrate his
ideas but what awaits us all opinions and
its an email saturday had microbes.

For the hand of its decision to say is
notion he contends ebola reston is encouraged
to an endorsement by tas marsh to predict the
likely at the risk of crashing point is this
guy is of piankas predictions come out and
miserable all but though mcconnell biology
senior.

The second to notice the biggest enemy we
waited too early for resources but 10 people
as its the funs going strong on daily basis
he embraces indeed his rights as confident
as candid of.

The while leaving the professors not fall
within the university of wide scale decimation
humans themselves will we will we do that one
course performed anonymously in population
should an evolutionary step away from
provocative food for any formal backing of
widespread disease advocating human biomass
he recommended airborne it is inconsistent
with little to her online blog.

The hand of sounding just as tenured educator
maintains the hand of wide scale yet he embraces
indeed it is not mandate the educators must make
every one she returned to become new outlook an
epidemic he declared death of humanity pianka
the likely well within the distinguished texas
professor says hes not without abundant advocates
but despite the treatment of africa and disease
advocating.

Question posted courtesy of: Caffeinated Content for WordPress

-[Sol-3: kansieo.com]-

Of course, this sort of automatic translation is in a way
almost deterministic.

Let's say that we take the classic story/narrative
duality:

The narrative is: The Queen died, and then the King died.
And the story is: The Queen died, and then the King died of a broken heart.

Using the AltaVista Babel fish, gave:

[English to French]

Le récit a lieu : La reine est morte, et alors le roi est mort.

Et l'histoire est : La reine est morte, et alors le roi est mort d'un coeur cassé.

[And directly reversed]

The account takes place: The queen died, and then the king died.

And the history is: The queen died, and then the king died of a broken heart.

But, again this is *directed* (ie, intentional text). That is,
while we might almost *any* conversation - which we would
expect to get pretty mangled in translation since slang is
almost never word-for-word.

But, let's look at this sample (since it is often used for
literary purposes to distinguish between the almost idential
concepts of "narrative" and "story"; read this as "just the facts"
and "the details". And of course with all fiction, it IS the
details that make the story. A classic exploration of this
occurs in Denis Diderot's "Jacques the slave and his master".

Note that for the most part the CONTENT of the text (the
narrative/story) survives nicely (see below for futher
translations), but the actual NAME of the thing (ie, "story"
vs "narrative") has trouble. This is rather odd, since in
a way "narrative" vs "story" is JARGON. And the purpose
of jargon is to AVOID confusion.

For example, in chemistry we speak of an ACID and a BASE.

In one definition, anything with a ph (hydrogen ion concentration)
of less than 7 is an ACID, and greater than 7 is a base.

For inorganic compounds (eg, for NOT things like methanol,
ethanol, gasoline, fats, carbohydrates, etc) this ranges from
0 to 15. But for organic compounds (eg, "Acetic Acid" - which
is a border-line in-organic / organic compound), Oxalic acid
and such - in many case where they will NOT be disolved in
water, the problem of ACID/BASE becomes confused.

Thus an alternative *re-finement* of the definition comes
from (as i recall) the so-called Lonstead-Browery definition:

An acid is a proton donor
A basi is a proton acceptor.

Thus, even in a refined and restricted knowledge area,
the jargon can become confused and need restricting/
re-defining. Of course it could be argued that such
cases occur at the BOUNDARY areas of some under-laying
parameter; here, ionic vs non-ionic solutions, as well
as ionic (in-organic) vs covalent (organic) bonding
properties of the compounds.

Thus, we come to:

Given A and NOT A (say B, rather than "merely" the
negation of A)

the distinguishing marks can easily be made the more
different A and B

A = a swallow (Hirundo rustica) - a Euorpean Swallow

B = a hat (derby for ease of reference; but perhaps
a fedora (hatus Sardouri; the joke is
that for the most part the Roman's didn't
wear hats; the closest would be a helmet)

ref link: -[Latin-English dictionary]-

alas, i digress.

Both A and B fly (with the wind of course in the case of B)

Colours? Textures? - appearance

Thus, almost any number of distinguishing marks exist for
these. But, the closer the two are (eg, two different
species of Swallow) the fewer distinguishing marks there
are.

This is due to the fact that within each classifciation
there is the possiblity of VARIATION without exclusion.

Now, to return to translation.

If we have something like

English: The Black Cat

French: Le Chat Noir

(the familiar haunt of Toulouse Latrec, Eric Satie, etc)

Now, we go to this:

English: The only slightly black cat.

French: Le seul chat légèrement noir

Reversed: The only slightly black cat (100%)

And then

English: The only sightly black cat, supposedly grey.

French: Le seul chat noir sightly, censément gris
(btw, "grey" and "gray" give the same translation)

Reversed: The only black cat sightly, supposedly gray

Ah ha!!! So, what has happened??????

Mis-prints

In this section: {Mis-Prints: Intro}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}

Mis-Prints: Intro

NOTE: It may be v. helpful to listen to the
Coltrane album "Greensleves" (... "Chasin' the train")
- entire album on infinite repeat while
reading this section.

This section was prompted by the text (from a google):

"Typing to you a thoug[h]t is seen cartridge script machine."
- Hannah Weiner in a lettr to Bernadette Mayer
-[Hanna Weiner]-

It occurs to me the [sic] notation reads as
follows:

thought [sic; yes, it's spelled correctly]

thoug[h]t [sic; no, they typed it in-correctly;
but, *I* know how it's supposed to
be typed!!]

We are next then prompted by (a superb essay on
duchamp by poet, Ocatavio Paz; my spanish is
noh soh good - that may mean the 8th pass ?? hmmmmm)

- again an example of mis-translation (by my brain)

Stuff

So, what are the aesthetics of peformance art as opposed
to theatre? Do we need restrict our definition/usage of
theatre to "traditional theatre" -- whatever that is; ie,
elisabethian, classical greece, Mollier vs the 1800c ??

More directly:

What are the particular aesthetics that
select/differentiate between

performed text
and
performance;per se
?
(it is recommended to listen to the 1st movemetn of
Prokofiev's Symp #2 (yes; number 2, and NOT the classical)

(an old beige rain coat might help as well)

We take as read text as text as text as text
read as simple recitation and/or discussion, etc.

Even if i speak as non chalantly as possible the words

To be or not to be

(or their equivalents in Klingon)

there is almsot no way that i can do so without destroying
context at that moment.

Or, as certainly one of the most feared (or one assume so)
poets of Plato, has sed:

>>In ancient times, paintings we-
re given their finishing touches
in stages. Each day brought so-
mething new. A painting used
to be sume of actions. In my
case, a painting is the sum of
destructions. I paint a work, and
then I destroy it.<<
-- Pablo Ruiz Picasso

Thus, in the case of Hamlet's words (arguably the most famous words
in the Language English!), we can not escape their weight of
destruction. Imagine a clown of most comic proportions, who
suddenly "strikes a pose" and utters them, or a dictator
(eg, Hitler, Nero, Cardinal Jimenez, etc) - that is, the two
anti-podes of human existence (nilhilism vs obliteration).
In either case, their preceding remarks/actions/etc are
struck into another unvierse this sort of *ultimate* dividing
mark: "To be or not to be".

Of course, we cheat here, since the words would have little
meaning prior to the widespread knowledge of Hamlet, it's
performances, and the "soaking in" of the work as pure text.

Note that only the the case of Hitler and his time (the 1900c),
would his audience be aware of what the words meant - whether
spoken in English or not. We might well ask if there have
"always" been such words?

Thus, we might have found some equivalent in the time of
the the Roman or Catholic scourages of equal maginitude in
the denigration and derrogation of the human spirit. But,
we would find such words useful in any event.

In the modern context, uttering "Fire" in a theatre, or
the word "gun" in the presence of secret service agents
protecting a president, king, or other official would be
the only equivalent in destructive power. Here, quite
literally so.

And what of the words of a doctor concerning some critical
results of a test? For example, an "HIV" test? In my own
case, i had determined if indeed i was still "hiv free"
i would say a certain thing from a certain play - sort
of thanks to the mues for sparing my life (at least for
a little while, and in this major way). The lab tech
got my file, went back to the back of the office -
through which i could see him looking at my file. The
passage from the reception room, led past the desk that
served as the reception, down a darkish hall, and into
THE ROOM (that is, the room where people were counciled
when the news was not good). And the ages clicked by,
the tech (way "back there") continued, looking at the
sheets stapled to my file.

An infinity of time passed as inifnity does (as it does
at about 3 minutes into Satie's "Ballet Realiste").
Finally (as it turned out, i had had a liver cancer
test done as well, and of course, that was a bit
unusual).... oh, you're all right..... (sed he')

so out sprang these works,

Very well, then we shall have a new opera.
And Herr Mozart shall write it. And it shall
be in German; there 'tis, then.

Odd, how performance just "happens".

START AGAIN

One of the major aspects of theatre is that it IS produced
from written scripts -- there is of course a complete "agenda"
or at the very least an "aesthetic" that this brings to the
work (both the text and the performance)...

In theatre, we have: If it ain't on the page,
it ain't on the stage.

But, then we have improv (which from one person is essentially
the same as host interviewing a person),
in multiple person comedy sketches (eg, "Whose Line is it anyway?)
the actors are inter-acting with each other. In the case of
an acting class, even if the actors are inter-acting with
the "audience", the actors in the room sort of "know" that
it's an act - ie, part of a class assignment.

But, then we go down to how well the audience knows the actor
and of course how far the actor thinks that they can go with
the audience at hand. Recall Naim Jun Paik's statement to
Stockhausen: "But, none for you!" (shampoo incident).

And of course this goes back to trust systems in theatre in
general. The limit of which is STILL "Ubu Roi"'s first
performance.

So, for the theatre (circus? poetry reading? science lecture? sermon?)
comes the MATCHING of speaker(s), content(s), audience(s), etc.

We might imagine multiple audicences congregated into the same space,
either seated separately (as in a quiz show: "The National IQ Test"
-- great drama (yeah, right) -

And of course if we allow or dis-allow (forbid) inter-action?

And then if we go towards street art, interventionist, and then
back again to Jim Dine's "Crash Dummy" or Paik's "Concert with Shampoo",
we have the issues of:

How much contol do we impose on the system/performance.

Compare this with Australian Zeb's "Wrap the art books".
In this case, he didn't want TEXT to be written on
them - which he *controlled* by giving everyone
ONLY the book, wrapping paper, cissors, and scott's tape.

Enter the crazy artist - thus, creating the ONLY work
which did have text written into the work.

Imagine the infinite library and we tell each participant to
choose an album or book or such to "present" or use as part
of a group dynamic. Does each person do their own thing a
their own pace, etc.

Say we get a bunch of people to learn a song/pledge/text and then
re-cite/re-play/re-tell it?

What is the Format?

The Game Show

Here we have a host, and a set of expected behaviours (but compare this
with National Lampoon's (??author??) game show "You Just Can't Win", or
along the lines of Robert Crumb's "Dispair" comic book, etc.

Or a quiz show? Everyone *still* responds with that QUESTION FORM
- which was cute 40 years ago, but lacks any sort
of charm now!

Compare the stiffness of the rules with reality of the NOW.

On "Lingo" they have the lovely Tanya ??name?? to tell the
contestants when they've used a word that doesn't exist.
This alleviates the idea of the FATHER FIGURE (host-man)
from punishing the CHILDREN. Again, re-casting things into
Freudian terms: The player as child being TESTED - school, yes;
but, just look at all of the lovely prizes !!!!

Dennis, there's some lovely filth over here - T. Jones (old woman)
to "Dennis" (her husband?) in Python's "Quest for the Holy Grail".

All Configurations generator

Part of this goes back (clearly to the library of babel),
but more to the point. If we have a cast of characters
(which may in fact be very large. For example, look at
the total cast listing for the documentary "Trekies"
-- everyone who is photgraphed, or speaks (mostly these
are in I/V's) are listed. Essentially, a complete catalog
of everyone in any way *directly* invovled in the film.
Thus, we wouldn't list someone's aunt just becaue that
person was in the film - in-directly invovled, 2nd order,
etc.

This of course goes back to "jargon generator" (choose one
word from each column and include it in a report; eg,
non-linear adaptive enumeration, reactionary insular reporting,
etc.)

Thus, we might have a sort of "butterfly effect" plot generator;
except of course, the film isn't an all configs generator. Thus,
we can imagine all 20 of the "master plots" and into that bring
different genres (after all "Outland" is just "Encounter at
OK Coral" but in SciFi genre setting), and then all of the
possible character types, followed by a list of their
evolution through the film. And thus, we get all possible
sit-coms, tv shows, etc. To my knowledge (indeed limited
there ;) this hasn't actually been performed - all possible
combintions. Even if we limit the explosion of ideas and
possiblities, they could still be worked through. And of
course, depending on how each actor/artist/designer interpreted
and presented their bit along with the others, would give a
certain "flow" to the work. Inevitably, when making traditional
film, these same "fitting in" actions of editing, selecting/
discarding, etc. are taking place to bring a *coherent* vision
or film to the silver-screen in a traditional manner - and
therefore: Expected manner. Note too that then the "twist
ending only shows up as one of several myriad possiblities
and is chosen because it is "un-expected". But, that in
itself is a lie. Look at Larry Niven's "All the myriad" ways,
if any unusal out-come doesn't show up - then we are "surprised".
Something has gone wrong (incompletely executed) in the
configuration generator. And unlike Star Trek's "Yesterday's
Enterprise", we are un-able to decide (dictate, select, publish)
the ONE TRUE time line. There is none, just different possibilities
in the infinite stream of infinite possiblities.

Of course, in the context of considering all of the absurd
possibliliies, we enter into the absurdist out-look, and
then down the lane of "farce" (clearly so; since the
"Donald Trump" character gives all up and decides to move
to Tibet to take up a monk's life. Wait, that IS a common
plot... ;). This subeject is investaged in the "Police
Squad" TV Series when (1st episode as i recall), Lieutenant
Drebin tries to re-create the shooting scene, and has person
after person shot in variations of the shooter's height, etc.
This is more grimly (but not any less purely absurdistly) done
in "WarGames" when at the end the super-computer, Joshua, tries
ALL possible war fare compaigns only to conclude: The only
winning move is to not play. Moralising asside, this is particularly
the absurdist view of war, death, and how much raw hamburger
meat one *can* shove up their nose, er, ahm "sexual charisma"
and selection in male-dominted fantasy-based escapist texts
using action-adventure as if it were some sort of universal
cake-mix flour, and voila: It's Eight and A Half.

X-product Generators

The oppostite of "entropy" or even
the idea of "all configurations" {All configurations generator}
(total noise)

NOTE: I'm using "collage" as the means of "drawing" / "poeticating", etc

A dictiionary (while it may be read) will not noticbly change
the LANGUAGE of the ideas since it is an expression OF the
language in which it is written. A phrase book would be better
but, agin this reads as THEMATIC; eg, "at the hotel", "asking
directions", "getting laid", etc.

Thus, there are two tracts:

1) Create spontaneiously (is there *really* such a thing unless
we throw dice?) a collage; probably using music (jazz? ;) as
a stimulator.

2) Create *thematic* collage; eg, "UP!", or "GO!", or
"Feminists unite!", etc.

We take this action to construct the TAPE (eg, as in the tape in
a Turing Machine (qv (google) : Alan Turing; computability, Kraps Last tape)

thus we have two tapes; call them :

TAPE-1 (the spontaneous)
and TAPE-2 (the thematic)

other tapes are surely, Shirly possible???

We can take an INDEPENDENT cross product by taking TAPE-1 and then
reading at the same time as filming [we take as "read" that film
is to make the presentation; telecast, podcast, naration of the
work - eg, someone writes poetry that describes the visual) while
the other elements (eg, danse, or a simple poetry reading).

To un-twist this; eg:

1) The previously prepared collages are filmed

2) An artist reads (eg) Thomas Merton's "The Very Atomic Bomb"
essay.

The independent cross product of these will create a unique system
of ideas that the OBSERVER (again depending upon the internal state
variables (emotional state, nominal physiological state, abnominal
and/or induced/etc metabolic/hydrodynamic state, external ENV, the
company (or alone-ness, etc), etc, etc).

Thus, as the TAPE-n is played and then cross-producted (we might
say VECTORED; maths-speek) with the alternate track, the observer
is thus affected and *should* (what-ever that means) thus effect
something as well; ie,

TAPE-n x Independent Text
----------------------------------> observer effects
"vectored" onto an observer a change
(the performed text affects the observor) internally, externally...

We can now expand this in generalities and see that in the ZEROTH order
cae, this is "nothing new"; eg,

TAPE-n is a orchestral score
The INDEP TEXT : the perfomer
the observor listens and
is altered (affected, creates new effect)

(simplest would be a singer's sheet music;
ie, one text of notes v. linear --and--
a singer can only sing one note at a
time; but gliding, vibrato, sotto/forte, etc)

Next of course we go along the line that leads to such zanies
as Spike Jones, Victor Borge, PDQ Bach - the primary text
is altered in a controlled way (or not so controlled)
but basically remains "treu" to the original "intent".

The INDEP TEXT, again the performer using their STYLE
to accomplish varying degress of AFFECT on the observor.

The style variant is simply a potentiometer that ranges
from zero (as written; eg, "if it ain't on the page,
it aint on the stage) to 100% total chaos; eg, the
absurdist parade, much of the Python's work, and of
course accidents in transmission.

100 would be (i think) considered completely random
and would harken back to Hawking's observation that
if the event horizion of a black hole DID ever
evaporate, that the exposed singularity could emit
ALL possible configurations; eg, dragons, unicorns,
or even colours that are green, but only petunia-smeellingly
so; refer to polyphasia in humans, etc.

But, again if the observer isn't "tuned in", then no affect
will be sensed and (most likely) no effect will be produced.

We now assume a fairly good source of the two INPUT texts
(the TAPE and the INDEPENDENT TEXT) as well as a fairly
well working receiver (the OBSERVOR). We take it as read
that whether or not there IS any effect from the observor
to be irrelvant and only of interest to "ratings types".

The hiden variables are that unless the various input texts
are computer generated (and not necessarily random, but
in according with at least *some-what* predictable means),
then the texts are dependent on the state of the person
producing the texts.

Thus, of course in strict Hegelian fashion:

Thesis --------------------> anti-thesis
gives rise to

Thesis x Anti-Thesis ---------------> syn-thesis
gives rise to new thesis

(we take as read that the initial anti-thesis generation
is NOT spontaneouos but due to hidden variables in the
ENVironment)

But, then the new synthesis is itself a new thesis
(and or a new anti-thesis that happens to correspond
to an independently created other thesis), and hence
the process of evolution (or at least reaction) occurs.

Thus:

Every tape produced is the product of the
various ENV's, the people invovled, etc.

which leads directly to the idea that since multiple
readings of the texts can occur then multiple cross
products can occur.

This of course is nothing new since even Pavlov's dogs
become *mentally* weary and don't respond in the same
way after they've become conditioned in the long time
after that MARK is made in their behaviour.

And of course the same is with the repeated performance
of ANY text (eg, a musical piece, a theatre performance,
etc).

This brings up the problem of:

Knowing the text diminishes the possiblity of effect of
occuring.

We might think of shocking things like Linda Blair in
"The Excorcist" if it was made into a *straight-laced*
theatre work. And people were heard to say as they came
out of the theatre, "Somehow her vomiting just didn't
seem as convincing as last time we saw it".

Thus, the problem in the PERFORMED TEXT is not so much
as in its creation, but in its variations.

This goes back to a fundamental difference between
tradtional performance and PERFORMANCE ART - the key
is not necessarily to change it slightly to "keep it
fresh", but to keep the concept of altered change possible.

Again, with the bored observor, they start noticing the
zig-zag half-loop stiching in the costumes rather than
being able to be affected and thus effect change in
themselves.

Which is all well and good if one is going to do surgery
or check for flaws in a Space Ship, but as regards
performance art is that we really don't know what's
going to happen. The first few performances might go
one way, but as with Nam June Paik's "shampoo"
experiment with John Cage and Stockhausen -
subsequent systems would be meaningless; or at worst
repeetitive for the sake of documentation, second-takes, etc.

Thus, the PROBLEM with the various texts that we use for
the performance texts (either the TAPE or the INDEP TEXT),
is the stale-ness is not necessarily a good or a bad thing,
but it should NOT affect the TAPE (which is of course
only an INDEP TEXT that has been previously prepared
and thus known as a TAPE since it is (supposedly) FROZEN.

But, again this goes back to the INTENT of the performance
as well: We (as artists NOT performers) don't know what to
expect. At each moment we are creating the INDEP TEXT and
of course not even really hoping for ANY real affect at all
- ie, we trust that since we enter into the performance in
"good faith" (as in Sartre's idea of existential honesty
in acts in the public - or in Socrates' comment private -
discourse), then we will have an affect; EVEN if that
affect is the NIL event; ie, no affect at all.

All of this certainty shouldn't worry us too much (btw, this
portion of this paper was prepared by listening to a couple
of sound tracks on infinite repeat - thus, trying to remove
any *systmatic* inputs into the prodcution of this INDEP
TEXT which since it is being saved on disk is thus to
become a TAPE). Again, the lesson from both the fractal
(and especially) the quantum is that things will happen.

BUT.

This is exactly the process that goes on with ALL artistic
creation (whether it is in the working of a mathematical
proof, the design of the streamlining of a DeLorian/Tucker/Wankle
widget, or....)...

Each stroke on the canvas talks to us in an un-known language
and then we re-act aback in the only way that we can - to
produce music; we scratch and etch (not to be confused with
scratch-out or stretch ;) as we work thru each possible "where-next"
that the canvas is screaming in a hundred million thousand
dimensions beyond any time or ALL space (even if there IS
a duck standing by!).

We then take what elastic has been stretched out in the space-time
continuum up to that poing. Pick out an especially sharp pair of
Dedikind Cut scisors and then make a tiny little hole in the
continuum (the hole punch had since turned into a very time-sensistive
penguin and decided that h/sh/neth had had enough and turned into
one of the three stoogies and done the curly shuffle (i think it
was Larry or Shemp) when all of a sudden it was TUESDAE WELD all
over again, and the press buried her up to her neck and then
walked off to let the tides to its work (tips towel to MythBusters)
in an especially berflermishly manner - not un-like so many tyrants
that REALLY think that the truth will not out.

But, when the elastic broke (after all it's ONLY composed of
SPACE-TIME (or in the Einsteinian German original

zeit rohm (althought it might have been Max Rholm
or Herman Hesse)

it turns out it was really Eva Hesse dying of appoxification from
her radium the poly-cast plastics that turned her into Madam Curie
and over to the side only Sylvia Plath cried silently while suddenly
a Russian guard raced out of the prision shouting something in-decernable
and was shot dead for though he was a good card-carrying memmber of
the polit bureau he had been shouting in Finish (of all things)

RAOUL WALLENBERRY IS ALIVE AND ....

at this point the penguin finnished it's curly danse and went to
a telephone and pressed K (for as in DIAL KRILL FOR MURDER) and
then Bill Griffith realised what was wrong and sent a telepathic
message to the ghost of Wilma Shakespear (still writing under
the pen names of William Shakespear, Francis Bacon and Alberto
Giocondii) which caused her to drop a second particple when the
pen slipped slightly from her hand - frantically grasping at
the air, the quill shot out of small crack in the wall and
re-attached itself to a stange old woman's hat, where-upon
causing her to trip and fall and consequently was NOT killed
at the next intersection when a horse galloped awkwardly by
not in time to the music of an eight hundred piece orchestra
that simulataneouls plyaed both works (require-ing such) by
Mahler and Berlioz - the work by SHUBERT (the symphony
formerly known as NUMBER SEVEN) having not yet been finished
when he completed his NINTH was in-advertanly re-named the
un-fhinished.

But, weeping quite openly Tuesdae Weld thought that maybe that
was all that Franz had meant to write. Meanwhile as the tide
came in, and night fell three mysterious people came to the
edge and carefully dug her out.

But then the lights came up, and once again Frankcense and
Guildernstern were flippiing coins with no effect. But just
then Stoppard realised that it has always having been not
a dream, but just random words on a page.

And yet....

ACT TWO

Small persons (children and/or little people) should be
carrying a large sign on which are written the following
phrases - chosen as needs be of:

O U T L I N E

Y E S T E R D A Y

H E L L O

2 0 0 1

1 9 9 9

I AM NOT YOUR EXPECTATION OF ME

ANY NOUN CAN BE VERBED

(more to follow)

If possible the theatre should be set fire to and everyone in
it should grab a scroll, painting, costume, etc and take what
can be out so that *most* of the things might be saved.

ACT THREE

same as ACT TWO, except that Chaikovski's play is burned up
but fortunately Glazinov and Borodin re-create it using only
their memory of the one performance.

Also, the "dream sequence" should be en-acted entirely using
AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE - multiple actors behind a "punch and jedy"
show.

The interpretaions are given by a set of marrianets by puppeteers
that do NOT understand ASL. Alternatively, the SHOW-ER's can use
(eg, HEBREW, RUSSIAN, ARABIC, KOREAN, etc) SIGN LANGUAGE, as long
as the puppeters don't read that particular lanauge.

The EMOTIONS experessed by the person's fists (all that is showing
is up to the shank of the arm just below the elbow - that is
between the elbow and the wrists) should be accompanied by
an orchestra AND a band (or any juxtaposed) groups - they
should be able to SEE the conductor/band-leader and but they
should NOT be able to hear what each other is playing.

(semi synchronised)

Occasionally, the conductor/leader will go around and insert
MUSIC SCORES that seem appropriate to the story -- they are
the ONLY musicians that can "see" what is being acted out.

At the same time, the small sign carry'ers will at 10, 2 and 4
minute internals (followed by a 7 minute rest period) go around
and change either 1, 5, 15, 35, 55, or 90% of the scores to
a DIFFERENT - but the same score. When the small sign carriers
are done **NOTE-BELOW ** the, the two conductor/leaders
(three? four? I'm not sure that even Charles' Ives'
dreams extended that far, but who am i to be nine with
only five is six anyway?). The two (n) conductors bow
to each other use a WIPE OUT sign and and then start
their two groups in sync again.

pls ignore the folloiwng line of TEXT
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89

NOTE: As a "circus in miniateur" the small sign carry-ers
should work on their phrases as well as the timing.
At some times they come out with the signs, at
others doing danses or such - but not too predicatble
poss: even several of them "arguing" (using sign language
and/or panto) as to what the ASL hands are saying.

Although, i'm tempted to have "mock executions" - art
re-enactments (eg, the 8th of May by Goya, Christ on
the Cross, etc) this might be too camp - and thus
predictable - and thus might make a good random elment.
DAMN you Raol Dahl and your UMPALOOMPAS' --
if repetition is the death of art, then surely
copying its its actuall assasination.
Also, this was done in the PARADE OF ILL-LOGIC in
the Star Trek (TOS) "I, Mudd", etc. Need something new here...
drat.

regardless how the cadre of little sign carriers come in and
go and how they bow/curtsey (even having one mopping their
brwo like a surgeon as they are changing out the musical
scores).

RESEARCH NOTE: Don't overly "test" what works and doesn't
in terms of music, action, colour, light, etc as it over-laps,
negates, re-enforces, etc. Keepy it green and leafy.

BUT SUDDENLY the entire cast knew that this two was only an
illusion caused by text on a screen and that an old poet's
feet were hurting so badly that they must suddenly stop.

Where upon a duck (or a moderatly well-behaved robot) came onto
stage and read RAGE! and it was suddenly apparent that no one
was convinced at all that it was Tusdae Weld - for one thing
they kept mis-spelling her name. But, just then from the orchestra
pit the chorus all rose and they were all dressed in rather nice
gowns the only distraction being feather boa's. And at that point
they all began to sing the chorale from Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
And onto the stage came the conductor slumped over in a wheel
chair and as they approached the podium she awoke, sat up in
the wheelchair nicely and tapped three times on the podium
and (despite the fact that NO one (well maybe one) could actually
HEAR the tap-ing of the batton) they began to sing a highly
stylised verion of tea for two that ends up being a rendering
of the 30-minute version written by Shostakovich.

As they end, they all begin high-stepping off their stage to the
wings and a large scroll of Shostakovich rolls down at rear stage.
But, just then the theatre caught fire and everyone had to try
to rescue what they could. A large, portly man with a moustache
in a wheelchair grabbed up the nearest big-busted babe that he
could and headed (otstensibly) off stage (stage LEFT). But, just
then his wife came in tossed the old man out of the chair and
the two women wheelied off stage as the old man dragged himself
into the orchestra pit.

But, then that too turned out to be just an illusion because
suddenly the scroll of Shostakovich turned into frollicking
penguins on one side slideing down his nose and out-stretched
hand (holding a baton), and on the other side (his back) a
number of cute little monkeys started swinging down from his
flocked hair, formal/long coat tails, and of course in the
middle of it all Bill Griffith new that Zippy was indeed
in trouble now and sent yet another telepathic message thru
space and time. But this time, it reached only as far as
the orchestra pit and the over-weight man with the moutstach
snapped up and hands-to-side-of-his-head ran off screaming

MICHAEL NESTHMITH'S MOTHER INVENTED WHITE OUT

MICHAEL NESTHMITH'S MOTHER INVENERATATE OUT CASTING

MICHELLE NORTHWORTH'S OTHER VERTIBRATE IS IN GRATING

MINISCULE WORTH NERBLERS VERB ALL KNOWN NOUNS

ONNNNNNN TUESDAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY

At which poing, it was clear that the old man stumbling onto
stage not only WAS Raoul Wallengerg but was holding an over-due
library book of proto-modernist poetry - which (fortunately
enough) had been carefully disguised as CERTAIN REALISTIC
NUDE PAINTINGS in the IMPRESSIONISTIC/PROTO-NEO-REALISTIC
style. But, then the old man looked up at the scroll which
then rolled up to reveal a back-drop of a CATTLE SCULL in
the desert. And suddenly an etnire troupe of sylph-like
danseurs came on stage and the music was suddenly STRAVINSKI's
RITE OF SPRING and as the danseurs reached the crescendo of
their work, it was suddenly WEDNESDAY ALL OVER AGAIN
and the theatre (once again, like the library of Alexandria,
the Nasbedi Muslim Library of Turkey (destroyed by Christians),
the Great Library of Persia (destroyed by muslims) -- BURNED
TO THE GROUND.

But,

the way that i heard it was that it was all just a dream
and they all lived happily ever after.

AS THE AUDIENCE IS LEAVING

(four people come on stage - Ostensibly one jew, one christian,
one muslim, and one agnostic - all meet in the middle of the
stage stare at each other then at the audience, shake their
heads sadly, shake hands, and ALL depart the stage - stage
front into the orchestra pit where they descend into the
depths - from which can be heard fragments of Beethovan's
"ode to joy".

--30--

nite all.

- frank. Solstice 2007/2008 about 7pm PCT.

-^_6

The Usual Suspects

Jacques Derrida

Notes on LINEAR-i-SATION
(some obvious notes i might add)

Some of the following things came up in a recent discussion
and not being able to point to something on the subject
(surely, Shirley, this *has* already been written?)...

Let's consider two particular works of art that happen to be
be sculptures:

"Vortex" (H x W, etc)

interesting link: http://durangotexas.com/eyesontexas/disaster/rust/deadlyrust.htm Where the west begins to rust

http://www.williamweston.co.uk/pages/previous/single/205/152/1.html wood engraving (1931)
ref: http://www.modernbritishartists.co.uk/moore_index.htm

Anyway, we have the two sculptures

a minimalist/expressionist of a reclining nude
and a minimalist/abstractionist of a twist in
space along the verticle axis.

There we are done.

Now let's look at the linearisation of these things.

We know that we can take a formal approach to the works.
Both exhibit both "open" and "closed" forms in the traditional
sense of sculpture. The nude is less "problematic" in dealing
with since we see (roughly) a head, arm and breast so it at
least *reads* as a nude (or at least mostly humanoid). The other
piece might well be mistaken (by our friend Mandrake the Martian)
as a temple of worship, or perhaps a portal of some sort.

We can of course decompose each of these into forms that are
linear. We might take a curve running thru the nude starting with
the arm up to the supported head, then down the neck past the
breast and ending with the odalesque torso stretched out in a
classical manner.

I would maintain that such a linearisation does nothing for us
and in fact *loses* much in the TRANSLATION.

On the other hand, the process where by Serra describes the process
by which "Vortex" is to be constructed. We take it as read that he
could easily (or not) have made the moulds from which the pieces
are then cast into, shaped and finished the edges, hired a lorry
truck to haul the work to the site, then hired a crane and hoisted
each piece into place - using some sort of supporting scafold to
support each piece as it was placed. More likely he *linearised*
(and this via TEXT) the process probably being involved on-site
in the installation of the work and at least in contact during
the fabrication of the components.

In this case, the linearisation is essential to the making of the
art and almost screams at us from the work itself.

Now that we have been down this path of thought, we return to the
nude and think that the sculptor probably didn't go to the quarry,
hire a steam shovel, lorry, etc and bring the stone to their
workshop, etc. However, we can again think of the sculptor
"shop-ing around" for just the right stone. Reference here is
of course to Michaelangelo's use of the large un-gainly stone
refered to as "the giant" which he sculpted into his "David".

We take as read the two artists' knowledge and practice with the
materials at hand, tools, subject matter, etc.

Now to return to the process of linearisation (whether via TEXT or
some set of equations).

We know that if we take a picture of a sculpture (especially a 3-D
one - i'm thinking in contrast of David Smith's "Hudson River"
which is a 2-D drawing in metal; much inspiration for me personally
btw) then we automatically *lose* something in that process of
REDUCTION. I don't want to get too sidetracked here but the picture
taken of the object is *clearly* a TRANSLATION from the 3-D to the 2-D.
But, since we could conceivably use a tomographic scanner (think
MRI or PET scan here) of the object and hence build up a series
of cross-sections - and then repeat this process of scanning the
entire object along EVERY possible axis thru it - using either its
exact centre or ANY point inside or outside of it; remembering to
chose points inside the cusp of space formed by the arm prop-ing
up the head, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, that process would be one of DOCUMENTATION and of course would
be along the "iconospheric axis" of the linearisation mentioned before
where-by Serra describes the work to be done to create and install
the sculpture.

Thus, let us take as read that taking a picture of ANY art work is
a REDUCTIVE process which "in the limit" becomes one of DOCUMENATATION.
The degree of completeness varying obviously with the method and/or
equipment, time available, ENV conditions, etc.

Thus, we have our SINGLE picture of each sculpture and we then scan
them into a computer and use a compression program to convert them to
a bit-map (BMP) file (which is *theoretically* loss-less) or into a
JPEG/GIF format (which via compression must necessarily lose some
details).

The picture in an art book is most often our introduction to any work.
And of course we come across the two sculptures (or at least their
pictures) side-by-side and the same size.

We note the SCALE and MATERIALS listed, etc. And then in our mind we
DE-linearise the works back into a *mental* image of what they must
look like. We could even imagine the nude being placed inside the
Vortex work.

Further, we can imagine viewing the vortex in the distance thru the
cusp of the arm holding up the head.

But, now we see that this process is NOT that of linearisation but
in fact EXPLODING the components that have been previously linearised.

Finally, let's think about the process of linearisation that parallels
the JPG/GIF compression except in the area of sound.

We know that every sound can be represented by its so-called
"Fourier Series Expansion"; a single, pure note only requires one
co-efficient (call it A0) - to *reduce* Pavaratti singing "Solo Mio"
would require (at any given fraction of a second probably some
20 or 50 co-efficients (call them A0, A1, A2, ... , B0, B1, B2...)
each with values that change from micro-second to micro-second.

Again this *representation* can *theoretically* be loss-less, but
the computer time to do that becomes excessive so the series is
truncated (eg, using ONLY the first 30 A's and B's in ANY sample
of the sound). Further, we sample the sound instead of millions of
times a second, only something like 50_000 or so.

Again, this linearisation is necessary so that (given the current
state of computer/battery technology) we can carry our tunes around
in an MP3 player in our pocket.

And of course the important point here is that the process IS linearised
and is REDUCED as well.

Thus, we might have an outline of the performed act written as text
along the lines:

Weeps un-controllably until "Bip" brings them
a flower.

And this too is a linearisation (as well as a compression/reduction).
The catalog (dictionary in this case) of terms would have to have
definitions/examples for:

WEEPS UN-CONTROLLABLY

BIP (see: Marcel Marceau)

FLOWER (eg, picture, texture, smell, etc)

Thus, in the linearisation of ANY art object the process by which it
is linearised and the dictionary of terms both used in the linearisation
(whether reduced or not) as well as in the re-construction of the object
are necessary.

Necessary?

Well, that's another story.

gotta go - someone wants to use the computer,
alas.

oh yes, and the problem of reducto absurdum can actually be shown to be
a self-contradictory system of thought.

POST THOUGHTS...

Of course in performance work (especially I/A improv) then the
various texts that have been rehearsed previously can form
components out of which new "loops" can be constructed by
the various performers.

Part of the problem comes with obscuring the obvious. In many
cases, art works hide this inner structure (eg, Hellen Frankenthaler's
variant on the Magi which is purposefully hung up side down).

Thus, the problemis that most trad theatre work depends on
resolution, the punch line, and of course interaction and
closure. So strong is this process of linearisation that
it begs itself to be explored more fully....

Falacies that are introduced by the "need" for LINEAR-i-SATION

One thing that continues to bother me (i think that most of
our innovations do come from "problems" and "irritation ;)..
Is the need for a "tidy ending", or "rationality". If i
may again refer to the some of the early German expressionist
theatre works (approx 1905 - 1916) where (clearly) they were
alredy antiicpating if not a world war, at least some sort of
confrontation between Germany and England - you can't build
war boats in a vaccuuum, etc.

But other than the Python (and v. rarely in TV literature;
eg, SCTV, SNL (first 2 years), and of course occasionally
the "mocks" that occur - eg, The Gary Chandling Show
"Oh, wow! This is our amnesia episode", Seinfeld, Simpsons,
and of course Futurama) are there attempts to proceed with
the non-sequiturs of life at least some-what INTACT.

I tried to point this out in one of my cartoons; reprodueced
at great time and effort here ;)

"The Tuesdae when almost everything was left behind"

The hidden text here is that when things are found in an
archelogical "dig" they get taken out of place (how did
they get there? was there an earthquake? how were they
arranged?) and placed into a cabinet. As i have quoted
before:

As Cynthia Freeland puts it in "But is it art?"

For example, my direct experience of African
nkissi nkondi fetish statues from Loango,
[shaped like animals or a person, about 30”
max in any dimension] in the Kongo region,
which are bristling with nails, is that
they look quite fierce – like the
horror-movie Pinhead from the "Hellraiser"
series. The initial perception is modified when
I learn 'external facts' [ie, facts outside of
the art object itself - but, internal to the
culture within which the work was produced]:
That nails were driven in over time by people
to register agreements or seal dispute
resolutions. The participants were asking for
support for their agreement (with an expectation
of punishment if it is violated). Such fetish
objects were considered so powerful they were
sometimes kept outside of the village. ...
[The original] users would find it very odd
for a small group of them to be exhibited
together in the African Art section of a museum.
[Freeland, Pp. 64-66]

REF: Freeland, Cynthia. (2002). "But is it art?"
Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.

That is in the cartoon these objects habe been placed side-by-side
as if they belong togther. But (like much of the episodic works of
cartoons from "SteamBoat Willie" to "The Simpsons") - it's just a
bunch of stuff that happened. There is NO RHYME or reason - like
much of life; the efforts of authors of guides to understanding
the un-understandable; eg, "Why bad things happen to good people".

So, where do we stand?

We as artists must deal with this everyday: That artist with clearly
less talent then brains but an "in" with the city coucil sells their
stuff by the cart load and at top $$'s (Altarian or even Afriganikien).
And other artists that we all know and admire (and dammit they're fine
folk and deserving as well) hae to eek out a living as a security guard,
etc.

So, the meaning-less-ness and the absurdity of the life, love, war, and
the universe in general (or mainly in-corporial ;) are all around us.

... hmmm gotta take me mum to dinner ....

PT as Social Criticism

We take it as read that *much* of traditional theatre IS
for the purpose of social criticism; eg,

Foundation vs Challenge

"The power of the elite rests
on the complacency of the
middle class"

The status quo (however it came about) is the structure of the
foundation of "society" (such as it is, such as we find it at
*any* point in time). We may treat the structure of society as
a closed, tightly-bound fractal system that models a basic
Carnot Cycle engine.

Thus, at any given point in time (and for non-trivial amounts OF
time) the entropic tendency towards self destruction is a given
positive value. As with all revolutions, this value stays rather
high following any revolutionary and/or catastrophic jolt to the
system. We take as read that such INPUTS are *not* within the normal
operational parameters of the society.

We can see that taking as our basic text the social/historical
and intellectual state of German playwrights, philosophers, historians,
and artists/poets/etc prior to the advent of the First World War
provides us with with several advantages. It is well documented,
and on either side of the triggering events (which of course are
simply limit events that are per se not responsible for the major
change of state) we have fairly inert and unbiased records - as well
as of course complete sets of appologist, explanitory, and presented
"histories" of the events. As such, this period of history presents
probably the most completely "open" set of pscho-historic settings
that we can hope for.

Before proceeding further, it is well to remember how history is
re-written not only by the winners, but the losers. Viz, the neo-nazi
re-tellings of the life of Hitler, etc - as well, as the "memoirs" of
various participants in the war that we are in-undated with on an
un-ending series of "*World War II* "documentaries. Enough to gag one
with a spoon.

Thus, the rather naieve view of photographic documentation of the
time provides us with an excellent *visual* text against which to
base our various other texts (whether fictional, factual, or some
mix of the two). The clearest example of this are photographs that
have been altered (and the fact of such biased alternation clear to
the modern day due to advances in technology that could not (or
only vaguely) be imagined at the time. For example, in Stephen J.
Gould's "The Mis-measure of Man" pictures of "retarded families"
clearly have their eyes drawn in looking cross-eyes; did anyone
*really* think that this would fool anyone? Obviously so - since
the advent of time (as a process) is usually ignored by the
reactionary mind and seen as something that can freely and completely
be controlled. This of course ignores the non-linearity of time
(if we can take as read "time as linear sequence of events as
demonstrated by clocks, calendars, etc") even when the supposed
flow of events is altered by "dis-informational" segments that
are inserted into the "flow of historical documents". Thus, the
one supposedly an accurate reflection/recording of the other.

Naturally, in terms of modernist literature, the paranoic writings
of various SF writers/film-makers bring this to the fore-front.
Recommended readings are of course by Philip K. Dick in his
"The Pen-ulitimate Truth" as well as the film "Memento"
(written/dir by Christopher Nolan) - note the spelling; "Momento" is
another excellent film but not the one i mean.

In each case (though clearly at different ends of the spectrum),
the constructed reality is what we take it to be. In the case of
Dick's novel it is the "big lie" and of course with Phil's twisted
sense of justice/irony that big lie is known to be such by one of
the inhabitants of the "cloud world" of the surface - here refering
to the "city in the clouds" motif that is so common in all literature
but especially so in SF and Fantasy. In the case of Memmento only
the protagonist (Guy Pearce playing "Lenny") doesn't know the truth
of the matter and the "reality" is revealed in stages as he learns
who he is and what *really* happened.

Thus, in the case of the performed text in such cases (which are
considering in the context of social criticsm) have the folloiwng
"possible" tapes:

1. The War was inevitable given the numerous "treaties" - many
of which were secret and often counter-acted by other treaties
which were even *more* secret.

2. With the industrial revolution now under full swing, it would
be inevitable that technology should be turned toward outfitting
ships and men (and now air planes and balloons - soon to be
dirgibles) to out-tech the other countries army/navy/air-force.

3. Nationalism being at an all time high - this brought on by the
numerous international exhibitions and world fairs. This seeks
to only inflame the competitive element of neo-colonialism.

etc.

These master tapes as the prinary canvas against which various stories
can be told and of course against which the *actual* historical events,
people, developments, etc are played out.

But, of course the "exact truth" is a version of a given master tape,
and onto it are played either selected events/truths or fabricated
things. An excellent example is "Remember the Maine" which was used
to fuel things along in the Spanish-American war which recent light
seems to indicate was *never* a case of sabotage at all, but rather
stupidity. Regardless, once and "event" is introduced into the world
(or that small part of the universe of discourse called "Earth" - see map)
it can then be "played" in various ways.

Of course, such diagramatic use of events and "fitting it in" to the
ultimate goal/plan/map of each faction/group is the norm in political
dealings. We often (now in the newest "modern" era) hear the spin
doctors (propagandists, various interest groups) talke about "how do we
play this?". Of course such cases are readily exposed via the standard
toolkit of absurdist theatre. A clever example is the "spoof" of the
Jerry Lewis movies (Saturday Night Live - ??episode??) in which he
plays a hapless air traffic controller who crashes two air planes into
each other but in comes his prospective fiance's father (the director
of the air port) and as it turns out this was a good thing since the
air planes were filled with terrorists. Note that this was written in
the 1970's.

Thus, the good becomes the bad, and vice versa - standard of the idea
of "reversal of fortune".

Finally, i'd like to talk about the concept of de-emphasizing an event
by the use of common mythology. In the film "National Treasure" the
idea of a vast treasure room being built 300 years ago prompts one
person to ask "How did they build all of this?" to which the *guide*'s
answer is "The same way that they built the pyramids and the
great wall of china". This prompts the *clown* to say, "The aliens helped
them".

Thus, we have the event (or even more basically the primary tape) and
then questions and answers sought within its context. And of course
it is the role of the *guide* in such narratives to provide the proper
explanations. But, enter the *clown* and all bets are off. This entire
premise forms the central structure of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

I leave it at that: That the text of *any* dogma or anti-social structure
can be turned on its head by the use of not only irony but of course to
be exposed in the light of absurdism.

What still needs to be investigated are other possible ways of doing this.
Clearly the process of *education* is so slow (and often eschewed or totally
derrogated) that only "tid bits" of trivia are proffered to shed any light
on the situation at all. But, for the most part since the status quo is
the state that has been created, nurtured, and maintained by those (the
elite at least, more likely the middle class) who benfit from it reamining
the status quo - change is un-likely.

But, of course come the catastrophic or external event - all bets are off.

Links
(this section only)

-[]-

-[blog about philo movies]-

-[Rotten Tomatoes review]-

google "momento" "murder" "amnesia"

-[blog: There will come soft rains - Anterograde Amnesia]-

-[]-

The sound-producing device}
{What is presented}
{Number of Voices/Devices

What is presented

Spoken words

an announcement (eg, legal words spoken quickly; prelude to a commercial)
a lyric (embedded in or starting/ending a broadcast b/c p/c - pod cast v/c
an important annoucment (interruption - news, disaster, etc)
patterened words (almost poetry)
a poem (embedded in or starting/ending a broadcast b/c p/c - pod cast v/c
gibberish

A song

A commercial (abrev: CMCL)

More than one voice

harmony / dis-harmony --> bach/jazz --> symphony --> order
--> intruded voice into symphonic space

--> mozart being practice in an concentration camp
the sounds of war x children playing - the dragon weeps.

a series of tv sets that start out in sync, and then slowly do not do
so, eventually each and every one is playing something different, and
of course it all goest into WHITE - and then blank..

HAL: Good Morning Gentlmen, I am an HAL 9000 computer....

Actions?

Are the actions performed by the speaker a part of the text?

In "art readings" (aka "Art Cricicsm") the robot-like walking about
of the performer(s) tends to negate the actions. Since the artists
are clearly reading from a PREPARED TEXT (we set the idea of "pretended"
readings from memory asside as a more theatre thing than art).

Techniques

Spoken text takes a variety of forms:

the Eulogy (eg, "Hamlet" w/Robin McNeil giving the final words
of the play), (eg, John Cleese's "send up" of
Graham Chapman), etc.
the monolog
the dialog
the conversation (with or with/out main characters)
the multi-log (often found in opera)

plot exposition (as needed, lumped in at the beginning (eg,
"Our Town"), salted through the work and
kept fairly obscure - possibly even contradictory).

plot referencing (elements that refer to forward or backward
(the traditional), or outside text elements).

charcter interaction (either explicit, related orally/written,
implicit through acting interaction)

The use of props:

Extension of action (magic wand, evidence in a trial, etc)
Hidden aspects (the un-read letter in "A Doll's House")
Plot/character exposition (reading a newspaper, as a "throw
away prop", etc)

And of course scenes, costumes and settings:

Traditional flats, or decorated set
Text written on cardstock and lowered into the play (Brecht, etc)
I/A with the scenery or costumes themselves (eg, disrobing in
Romeo and Juliet, tearing down the set or other "negations"
of "suspension of disbelief")
Announced or other textual "painting" of the "landscape" of the
play/performance

I/A (or not) with the audience:
Speaking to them, revealing to them the "secret", etc.
Ignoring them, or particularly pointing them out
Assigning roles to them in the play, as it progresses,
And of course "happenings", etc.

Meta Text Processing

In this section: {Intro}
{Numbers as keys}
{}
{}
{So, is the price of the thing its meta-value in the market place as OBJECT'd'DESIRE?}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}

Meta Text Processing - Intro
750]- Dewey Decimal)

But, then there is the problem of the "title" (see for example,
Nicky Hendrix's "Four" - which ostensibly contains ONLY three
graphic items, or of course Magritte's "The Key of Dreams", or
his better known "This is not a Pipe").

And then the catlog entry. Which necessarily must include the
dimensions of the work, the MEDIUM (ink on paper, mixed, etc),
as well as SOME description of it.

And then a photograph; eg, by the casual tourist ignoring the
dictim NO FLASHES PLEASE, the less casual tourist/artist type
sitting and sketching MotherWell's "Third Republic" - having
to bring their own folding chair with them since none is
provided in front of what is ostensibly a black smudge (rather
large though) on gessoed canvas, - that is the INSURANCE
photograph and attendant DOCUMENTATION.

And thus, we come full circle.

Each object is in a meta-relation to the things in that circle.

The title "untitled" is of course one of the most fruently
referenced, but of course, almost always a date or name
becomes associated with the work as "the title". Viz the
"date" used by Pollock for many of his works. Or the name
given by a critic may become the name most often given to
a work, "the mona lisa with the moustache" is much more
widely known - even if the PAINTING itself isn't.

Even fractions of an image become meta-tags to the object itself.
Provided of course that those image fragments are well enough
known - otherwise, they become just more a part of the
mystery of the work rather than illuminating the INTENT.

Numbers as Keys
Dewey Decimal System]-

Where we could identify a book by its code, and in turn
a picture by the page it was on, and of course, etc.

In returning (briefly i assure you) to Jorge Luis Borge's
"Library of Babel", we can use all of the books as all
possible codes to create a "pixel-map" of any work of art
- thus, reducing it to a plano-graphic offset version of
the original. Thus, one book would be the list of books
to be used - IN SEQUENCE - to create the image. This goes
back to the works of Chuck Close in his "pixelations" series.
A way in which we view the world every day - without even
realising it; mostly.

And of course in the case of symbolism or symbolist practice,
we find the need for a meta translating document (a dictionary,
a "reference work", etc) in order to grasp all of the implictions
of such a work.

Of course, with something like "The Spanish Republic" such things
are totally un-necesssary - since it is, after all "just a big
blob of paint"; ie, even the canvas isn't recognised in this reading.

Thus, as with most art, without the "attendant art history" the work
has personal (subjective) meanings but hardly any unifying meaning
that was placed there (in varying mental, phsical, etc state) by
the artist(s).

But, in creating a meta-language (especially a arcane or symbolist
one), we seek to create a way to insert one more element (barrier?)
between the art object and the "view" of the object.

Of course, assigning particular meanings (possibly hidden)
to numbers; eg, "42" in the h2g2, or "the one = neo" in the matrix.

So, is the price of the thing its meta-value in the market place as OBJECT'd'DESIRE?

The recent story of the littl girl who can
paint in an ab-ex fashion (with or without
being coached not-with-standing), brings up
the idea of the thing's price percieved by
its rare-ity, unique-ness, and desire-ability.

Part of *owning* a work is the TRANSFERENCE of
magical properties - even if they aren't necessarily
recognised as such.

If i own an original Van Gogh (eg, the large, varrigated
green tree) - that i know the image *already* shows me
to be NOT an owner of art.

I know the image by its structure and its hidden stories.
I know it by history - specifically the ART history of
the object.

So, is the price of the thing its
meta-value in the market place as

OBJECT'd'DESIRE?
But, as The Berger Project ("Ways of Seeing",
John Berger, Sven Blomberg, Chris Fox,
Michael Dibb, Richard Hollis, et al. 1977)

Oil paintings often depict things.
Htings which reality are buyable.
To have a thing painted and put it
on a canvas is not un-like buying it
and putting it in your house. If you
buy a painting you buy also the look
of the thing it represents.
[BERGER, P. 83]

This also brings up images whicsh negate either something
the performance, or themselves.

The association of PRICE and COST can be applied to ANY
element of the play/performance.

Perhaps a character in the perf/play can't afford some
information or a prop and thus, must beg the audience
for money to buy it. Receipts given, etc - perhaps even
a legal scene and the contributors are called to task
for helping. (The Trial by Kaffka)

Meta Text Processing - Ref info

Usefull google searches:

metasearch tools - open source

Some searches gave the following:

http://www.python.org/about/success/honeywell/

"our century"

Found along the way:

http://www.questia.com/library/book/conflicts-studies-in-contemporary-history-by-l-b-namier.jsp

http://www.pbs.org/kqed/nobel/

http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa110900a.htm

The Performed Text

The Performed Text

Intro

The Text performed; an alternate thought track

Perf Text: Entropy

Interpretation

Re-translation

Mis-prints

Mis-Prints: Intro

Stuff

What is the Format?

The Game Show

All Configurations generator

X-product Generators

The Usual Suspects

Notes on LINEAR-i-SATION

Falacies that are introduced by the "need" for LINEAR-i-SATION

PT as Social Criticism

Foundation vs Challenge

Links

Spoken words

More than one voice

Actions?

Techniques

Meta Text Processing

Meta Text Processing - Intro

Numbers as Keys

So, is the price of the thing its meta-value in the market place as OBJECT'd'DESIRE?

Meta Text Processing - Ref info