I didnt get lost in New York streets yet :)
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Leopold Zyka wrote:
> >First of all I thank Jonny (L. Zyka) for writing down his critics and
> >sending them out and I apologize for my long silence.
> OK maybe my critic sounds to harsh.
No, certainly not, I really appreciate your honesty. And I agree with
you in some points, but we are of course looking at it from our site -
this is the "creators", and I can have a bit more distance, as I didnt
work that hard as santiago , lee, gernot, georg, karin, aaron and
woflgan, crhistian and mischa did
> Maybe it has to do with the cultural clash you suffering with Oudeis.
> Traditional conservative Theater comes together with new technologies.
>
> My personal view is that I am not interested in simulating traditional
> things with new technologies.
well and we are not trying to do that!
Oudeis wants to bring theater into the 21st century ( I hate this
expression but it seems to fit here) -> that means preventing theater to
stay in its old shoes and not reflecting the change perception of its
audience
>
> >Jonny also reminds us of some unsolved problems in our concept or
> >project. (I would avoid speaking of A or ONE concept)
> I see this from the point of realization.
> I am convinced that ONE concept is necessary for the realization.
> There are too many contradictions in all the discussed ideas.
>
see - here I agreee again!
> Work in progress is just a verbal excuse not to know what is want.
> I think there has been a very long phase gathering ideas which is fine
> but it is necessary to set a deadline and decide for ONE concept.
> If you are programming you have to know what you want !
> There is not enough money and energy to change the concept every day.
> Improvisation all the time might be a approach in art but is no way
> working with new technology. A good design is necessary and can not be
> replaced by diffuse ideas.
>
but there is a difference between developing a machine and developing a
theatrical piece.
this is maybe best described wit "try " and "risk"
In theater you rehearse = you try out, you watch "how it looks like"
remember we were talking about it a lot with peter and harald. and peter
also made the suggestion to just go there and look at the moving lights.
of course its harder with the voice2midi equipment
so the next question is : why than did we never do it? I geuss thats the
next key in theater: because there never was/is pressure to do it
so thats when net.lab came up with the idea of diving oudeis into small
portions to have smaller goals to reach at once
and this , I think, is a VERY good idea and I would like to definetly
follow this up
maybe this small portions can be defined and end in (small) performances
over the year?
> >That is being a project that needs effort to be understood and
> >asks the audience not to consume only.
> All installations are claiming on this.
> You have to give the audience to understand what is the nucleus of
> the performance. Otherwise it is just some fun for esoteric insiders.
well I agree and I get very bored of may installations - to defend us I
would say we also need the audience for the test, and I know that sounds
horrible
> >I strongly agree with the missing dramaturgy in oudeis of course,
> >about the technical points you mentioned (RA etc) I think that those
> >really need to be discussed more carefully.
> In one of the last mails I got again the suggestion of Real Video...
> This looks like an endless recurrence to me.
this is what this list is about : ) endless ideas
- and why odueis would need a project "leader "
:)Mon
-------------------alles Theater------------
Monika Wunderer wunderer@oudeis.org
http://st1hobel.phl.univie.ac.at/~wunderer/
http://www.oudeis.org
telnet://moo.hawaii.edu:9999