i prefer the second one. it has quite a few advantages over english:
1. the actors will focus on dealing with acting. i think it's hard enough
to speak to a light bulb... and quite harder if you're not speaking your
language.
2. almost all of the audience on RL stages will understand the local
language, but not all of them may understand english. and besides
understanding, it will be easier to _enjoy_.
3. Web audience usually understands english pretty well, but all of us
non-english/american/australian/etc. like to have the choice to use our
language. so almost everybody has different versions of their sites in
different languages. internet is multilingual, why should we loose this on
the play?
4. the analogy gets closer to reality. ulysses spoke greek, internet is
multilingual. let's have a multilingual party next year (and remember to
include greek!).
seasons greetings/felicidades/Froehliche Weihnacten/...
santiago
mailto:jaco@overnet.com.ar
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/3721/
music is dressed silence
eviously
decided, and so no connection between stages is really necessary. maybe all
stages could be connected to a server providing the non-decided material
(the cyberchor). i don't personally like this idea, but it is much more
stable than having everything tied up in cyberspace.
but we're just doing the same thing in different spaces at the same time,
there's nothing new about it. it's just actors vs. cones, not actors vs.
actors-in-the-other-side-of-the-world.
[personal story: a couple of years ago i was living in belgium. i agreed by
mail with a friend here in buenos ayres that we would think about each
other at the same time, taking in account time differences. it was nice to
know that somebody i loved was thinking about me 12000 km away. but i'm
sure that's not what we want to have oudeis be.]
in the second one, actors interact with actors on other places. but there
should be a need for this.
the question is: is it different for the actor to speak to a cone than to
speak to a representation of another actor.
finally, i think virtual actors should not be light cones but virtual
actors. more than a beam of light should be within them.
how?
felicidades,
santiago
mailto:jaco@overnet.com.ar
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/3721/
music is dressed silence
if
he wants to. i thought this because i didn't like the image of ulysses
blinding ferociously the cyclop while standing stiff on a chessboard. i'll
read the messages regarding collisions before i get on the subject.
>>a drawback: this kind of process leaves little space to improvisation.
>>
>
>again, I said this on oudeis-tech as well. Maybe our concept is not good
>for improvisation, which does not mean we will take the life out of it but
>only very prepared in movements, and with only several movements, which
>gives not much space to act spontaneously on the stage / during the
>performance.
>
>maybe a drawback, but i would just call this a part of the concept.
nice trick ;> but please read my message 'Re:Heavenly Bodies Collide'. i
definitely think some improv should be permitted, or better put, promoted.
>PS:
>> music is dressed silence
>
>can we use this for net lags?
sure... what do you mean?
cheers,
santiago
mailto:jaco@overnet.com.ar
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/3721/
music is dressed silence