The Research Presentations (27 and 28 July 2000) will be presented as research outcomes as different from finished performances even though certain conventions of the performing arts will be used to facilitate and frame the Cellbytes pieces. In the interest of more transparency over less, the audience will be given the option of reading some minimal information beforehand regarding the electronic processes and connectivity that will be at play in fabric of the pieces (you can find these descriptions here). These descriptions will also give some insight into some of the choreographic starting points and processes behind the work. Each presentation will be followed by a discussion session with the audience.

Question #4: what do you expect the audience to feel, get, understand, read or interpret from an event where triggers are setting off random elements in the program?

Answer #1: The "cool" part about triggers is getting to set them off. as an audience member you wouldn't normally get the opportunity to set off the triggers. Watching someone else set them off can be interesting, also potentially not interesting. One thing I noticed from the solo Pippa did in Jennifer Tsukayama's piece was that the sound was definitely so related to Pippa's movement that after a while it became predictable. It stopped being interesting for me as a viewer after several minutes. There was no sense of musical or sound build-up or climax, not really a sense of musical flow.

Although this is a traditional musical concept - beginning middle end - I enjoy hearing the music and seeing the movement build to climactic moments, a sense of phrasing and intention/shaping the flow. if the phrasing is repeated over time, like pippa moving slower and getting less sound, moving faster and getting more sound, eventually it all becomes "even" and loses my interest as a viewer. How to get around this when the sound is triggered by certain sensors or related to movement dynamics? There are only so many sensors...

Also, an issue that has come up for me regarding triggers is that the audience does need to understand what is happening to fully appreciate the complexity of the event. How does one know the heartbeat is coming from the ISA when you hear it in 132? without the visuals, how can you appreciate the connection of Gene's heartbeat to both spaces? Especially when the heartbeat is being simulated in 132. Even if Gene's heartbeat is running the simulation, does this matter to the audience member? they just hear and experience the sound...technically yes, it is interesting/cool/etc., aesthetically speaking - I still just hear the sound no matter where it comes from. Then why connect the spaces? (Kristin Topham Petty)

Question #16:What do you imagine will make an interesting viewing experience for the web audience?

Answer #1:

My personal feeling is that when one is working with an extreme level of compression in technical terms (what most people see on the web will be extremely 'lossy' in that it will have a very low frame rate, very low quality, and be very small), one needs to employ a similarly extreme level of compression in aesthetic terms. What I mean by this is that I think short durations and close-up material will work well, and that images and sound need to be 'strong' enough (simple or straightforward might be better adjectives) to still be recognisable/interesting once they have been squeezed almost to death by the streaming process. (Jo Hyde)

Answer #2: I think there are going to be numerous intersections physically between the dancers of the two spaces, some which were intended, some which will be naturally occuring, that will be fascinating--this puzzle of cause and effect operating from afar. The layering effect, the different densities of the two stage events and the humans in the space will make for interesting play. Some things that were flat, like projections, seem to be moving into the three dimensional space. (Deirdre Egan)