Hypercompendia

The creator of Storytron, is speaking of the conceptual changes that technology presents to people in both the creative end as well as the audience.

"People not things"  — that art should be about people. Bringing story and people inside.

"Zero in on the essence of the medium" — that interactivity is the prime asset of the medium.

"Forget Plot" — In interactive medium, plot (predefined plan for the events that will happen) open therefore to the idea of interactivity.

"Always ask what does the user do–not what does he see, hear, etc."  The user must act.  Software is defined by its verbs.

Language — Can’t do natural language on a computer.  Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language and the perceptual reality of the speaker are closely linked together.  Language mirrors reality.  Since you can’t put reality inside a computer, you can’t put language within.  Solution: artist creating a tiny universe of his own. Then, you can create a ‘toy’ language to work with it. 

Inverse Parser — words that are required are hidden; problem and solution: in Storytron, the user is being shown only those that are applicable and gave us a demo from Storytron.  I think here of IF and it’s refusal to give you a hint as to how many possibilities you have.

"Storytelling is best done by storytellers–not programmers."  — Algorithm driven, do the problem is to find the writer willing to learn the methods.

Now Chris is explaining about bounded numbers–the necessary creation of a "new arithmetic" in order to fit the intent of the program. By assuming an average, and a number designation of plus and minus, most actions and feelings can be assigned by the same system.

We discussed technical versus creative and finding the ultimate combination.  Cognitive abilities must work in tandem with instinct and action.

I’ve worked with Storytron a tiny bit, just tiptoeing around to experiment.  I haven’t checked the site out in depth in a while, and it’s time to redownload the program.

Available by computer and modern technology, Dene was able to attend and present at the conference three pieces of performance hyperlinking, bringing it beyond the 2D space of a computer.

Steve Gibson’s Virtual DJ was performed by Dene live. Very interesting, rather like a living show of audio sounds if you can imagine that.  (I believe it may be online)  The ‘space of the work is a computerization of reading the artist’s movements so that the programming is an immediate response to the mood or artistic interpretation.

Things of Day And Dream (need to check this) was the second piece is a bit more complicated, involving chunks of space, divided by a grid into zones that Dene sets off by physically "clicking that link" with her body by entering into that physical space.

Rhapsody Room (need to check) More using of the cursor and the levels of area where the words are placed within the space.

The idea is intriguing, that of using body as a part of the whole. That the interaction of the artist within the environment is what sets off particular audio and visual responses.  More interesting is the fact that the environment is mobile and can be set up anywhere (with some needs, I would expect) and that the public is often invited to move within the space and to see how they relate and learn the mechanics.

Media being evoked by use of a tracking device.  It is hypertextual in that it brings about a change or event via touching or connecting, like that of a link.

This is something I’m going to need to delve deeper into, the more complete immersion of the physical into the literary.  I hope this is on file to download. 

It’s all a blur…..

Got through it without babbling too much and I think I made my point.  Next time I’m going to just run pre-taped audio since I neglected to refer to my notes and got ahead of the slideshow at times. 

So where do we play after Pittsburgh?

Actually, tonight what I’ll figure out how to do is make the Keynote slideshow available for either viewing or downloading here.  Believe me, it’ll be even better than the live performance.

After watching American Ghosts, Alan went on to explain the creative and the technical process behind it.  Choosing his characters from history, the graphics that mimic the flag, all of this shows the many diffferent areas that come together to make a remarkable piece of flash art.

I want to listen closer…

Alan Bigelow brought up the question of terminology in naming this new breed of writing.  Alan does some short flash pieces that are all web based.  Interesting that he does installations in galleries and that the work must be converted both in medium and  label to enable  the audience to  learn how to  react.

Alan prefers the term "net art" to describe his work.

Alan’s concept is dear to my heart: limited reader navigation and therefore negating somewhat one of the main objections by many to interactive art and writing which is that feeling and fear of getting lost.

We watch:  American Ghosts.

Finishing with Bobby’s story, the audience raised some interesting questions regarding the fact of whether or not one pov constituted a story in itself, and if some of the focus on detail would or will be a legitimate "link" to be considered.

Moving on to "Kate’s Story" we have a woman on a phone who then again faces the audience directly to give us part of her story.  We have the same scenario, with the woman entering the home to speak to Dennis, which would appear to be an alternate path to the event of Dennis locking himself in the bathroom.  However–then it returns to the "Bobby’s Story"scenario with the change being the daughter’s presence.  So then, we can assume that the two events are simultaneous.  The writer appears at the door seeking to interview Dennis, and we recognize him as the lost driver in "Bobby’s Story."

The question of hyperdrama as to its allowance of interactivity was discussed, and the key to the balance of characters and detail in each segment that layers into reinforcing the overall story.

Off to a great start with Charles Deemer’s Introduction to his hyperdrama Changing Key.  The idea of a passive audience asked to break through the fourth wall to "mingle with the actors."  It is a live performance on stage, yet can allow the flexibility of interaction by hypertextual choice.

We begin with Bobby’s story, which looks to be a nearly eight minutes segment of one character’s event.  He gets a phone call, and then addresses the audience, bringing them immediately into a world that up to now was not considered enterable–though by choosing to view this particular segment the viewer was indeed a part of the story.

The camerawork is up close and personal, following and focusing on the actors as if we are within their touch, which adds to the personal nature of the film.

Well I’m sitting here in the plush lobby of the Omni hotel waiting for the workshop on the creative aspects of hypertext to get started at 9:30 or so.  Had a great flight–smooth maneuvering through security and baggage at the airport, though without Steve to guide me, I’m afraid I’d have gotten quite lost in the system.  Likely would’ve ended up on the wrong flight with no clothes.  However, the Mac is a part of me here just as at home so I’d have adjusted I’m sure.

I’m so looking forward to the workshop and the conference, as long as my part in it is over and done.  I’m still a little nervous about it though I had a nightmare about it last night and nothing could go as wrong as what happened there, so the worst is over.

I’ll email more as we go through this.  Starting with Carles Deemer’s Hyperdrama so it’ll be starting out with a bang.

Going through and simply changing language still doesn’t have me hot for this story anymore.  Maybe, even though I’ve been away from it a while, I’m still tired of working on it.

I plan to spend some time in Pittsburgh working out a new hypertext.  Not even one of the ones I’ve started but something totally brandy new.

It’s time.

Editing and some revising of Paths mostly for language and necessary (or so extraordinarily lovely eloquence–not much here though!) verbiage just so I’m not embarrassed too badly by it next week.

It has me looking more deeply at its structure and while it seems so linear (x 5) on the Map View it is in concept so multilinear in its simultaneous timelines that I wonder if a good scrambling of the map would make it look more hypertextual.

Five characters, two time periods, no definitive right or wrong for the reader.  The question at the beginning posed by a woman’s reflections are mirrored throughout but it is a funhouse mirror–distorted by perception particular to a character.  I’m not seeing much to change with storylines and really don’t want to add anything to it to make it more concrete, so maybe for now just the language.