Crevice

I am in the process of pulling down video and audio from this blog in order to generate some space on my server. In time I’ll have the media files hosted elsewhere (and will update the links accordingly). In the meantime, if you would like access to any of the media files, please contact me on simonkellis (at) gmail dot com.

Another version … note enclosed performer (sides of house wont be transparent?).

 3D animation Feb 07 [1:13m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Having had a bit of time between then (showing) and now, I thought I’d take some time to note some possibilities for future development of “Crevice”. They aren’t in any particular order, but I’m interested to hear what you think.

1. Stages. My feeling is that we need at least another developmental stage before going into some form of presentation. I am thinking that this next development could occur next summer - perhaps December, although I have a feeling that January might be better. Any thoughts on this? I can’t see it happening between now and then at all (too many other commitments). In terms of this, I don’t mind the project ’stretching’ out over a fairly long time frame. Let the ideas drive the development, and no be compelled to present until it’s ready. This might mean that we present even as far away as February 2009 (!!).

2. Probably my biggest concern stemming from the first development is the issue of how the audience ‘handles’ the experience. By this I mean the actual mechanics of getting the audience into and out of the ‘house’ space. The various options we explored felt very clumsy. And this was exacerbated by what I perceived the watching experience to be like once the audience was ‘in there’.

As a result - and also from our various conversations - I wonder what the possibilities of developing a durational type work. One in which there is no prescribed beginning or end, in which the audience members (when/if they arrive) decide for themselves when and what to observe. In effect, I am suggesting we develop the work as a ‘true’ installation. It could work as a hour long rotation that is repeated 4 times (I like the idea that my role as a performer is strongly tested in this respect).

The project could then include both inside and outside viewing of the materials, leaving the choice to enter the ‘house’ up to the viewer. It would also mean we’d have fewer people (generally) in the house - giving a greater sense of intimacy, and reducing the awareness of other audience members (and getting in their way etc).

Also - we could then reconsider possibility of ‘revealing’ the moving body person only for people who enter the house. So, if you were to be watching the work from outside the house, you would not be aware of the underneath. But to go in - you may or may not (depending on lx state) be privy to that person.

Pushing this further - perhaps there are two sound environments - one that is ‘bigger’ and very clear when viewers are outside the house; and another more intimate (perhaps heavily voiced/text based) that is discernible when in the house (to generate a kind of audio mix between inside and outside sounds).

I also am interested in how we could develop narrative fragments in this type of arrangement … to offer a way of entering the ‘world’ regardless of what stage of the cycle it is experienced.

Best of all, I think, is being able to really allow images to develop over time - and not feel like we are squeezing ’stuff’ into a small timeframe. It would also mean that the project becomes a really strong foil to the conceptual framings of “Inert” - allowing audience total control of viewing time, location, quality.

3. I wonder what you think is ‘going on’ in the materials as they currently exist? I am still deeply interested in ideas related to security and time (particularly to do with the erosion of edifice). But some things came out of the showing that need to be considered. One, I think, is the role of the audience in the work? Jason Maling asked if he was an observer or a participant. Can he be both? Aren’t we always both? However, the ‘entry’ of the viewer into the house implies participation far more than conventional performance. What of having objects of house in the house? A table, chairs? The development of texts will also really push the project in particular direction(s) … there is something about a ‘retreat by choice’ that is still interesting to me.

4. Video - I do have a concern about the various aesthetics present in the work. I am thinking of working on some ‘cleaner’ animations, that are white lines on black background. The material Cormac shot on the second day of the shoot (!!) seemed stronger in developing a relationship with the space. But not sure about this at all.

5. Where to present? I really like North Melbourne town hall. The only problem is that it might be tricky to present a ‘duration/installed’ context in a venue in which audiences are used to beginning/end performances. ACCA would be great, so would ACMI.

OK - I think that’ s it.
I look forward to your comments David (b/c I can’t see Shannon and Cormac starting responses at this late stage!).
ske

I think this might be a diary entry.
It’s early on Thursday morning. This week was our first opportunity to start placing various materials ‘together’ - audio, video (two screens), embodied action underneath the viewers. It’s overwhelming.

My initial experience of being in the house (with two curtain walls, and two video walls) was daunting. So much to perceive, to notice. And as a maker, how to go about piecing the options together?

In this sense the process gets unwieldy. To make decisions on the development of a palate … and only THEN to be able to arbitrarily begin trialling the components of this palate.

We have two days left to organise/arrange some kind of working (or not) order for the end of this development. It’s exciting. Working intuitively, but at the same time with immense regard/respect for how a viewer (or viewers) might experience the materials.

“Crevice” is at in intriguing place … meaning possibilities emerging, but uncertainty and questions are the most present.

What is there beyond a fractured/partial body in this work?

Elizabeth talked (today) about the abstraction of the body through the floor that is so very different from the type of abstraction we talk about and experience in ‘regular’ performative situations.

Is there a way of digging into this man’s suchness given the perceptual limitations of the environment?

funny - i’m getting frustrated with ‘crevice’ as working title.
can’t we have more words?

And of habitat.

And of house.

I see you.

I see you (mostly).

A small place to see.

Four windows and a floor.

Rifts.

Division.

Sub-division.

Rima.

Floor above man.

This is the place I live.

It has walls and skin.

it’s late (that’s not a title in waiting).

Draft materials.

 FilmLook_grungy01 [0:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Cormac - here’s the simple room (flattened p/shop) file. If we want to animate (or delete) any of the lines in this image I could take the moving image/dv you work with (on this image) and then play with it in after effects.
This simple room (able to be zoomed in and out of) was one of my original ideas about having virtual rooms that seemed to elongate the physical space. As if the dancing body was a long way from the people/viewers/guests in the house.
Here it is: floor1_flat.psd
Hang in there.
ske