>But ever since Among Immortals II in the AEC, just about the only two
>things going on on this list seem to be
>
>- doing Freiburg
>- hacking, biting and virtual shouting at each others
Yes, I completely agree with this.
There has been a lot of hacking, biting and shouting since AEC. For some
reason oudeis seems to have entered the Land of the Lestrygonians complete
with vented spleens and free flowing bile. Well, as Georg said,
"This is the Internet, the least - legislated area of this planet."
It is not a technocracy, an autocracy, or an oligarchy. If people wish to
express themselves this way, of course, they are free to do so. As Mon
said,
"we have all freely chosen to join this list, to discuss to assemble ideas.
This is a free ground for everybody."
There are many, many problems with oudeis but the ability to freely express
one's opinions on this list is not one of them. If one of the results of
this freedom is biting, hacking and shouting, I guess that is something
with which we will have to live. Hopefully, it is an aberration.
As one of the two co-creators of Among Immortals, I hope that AI 2 was not
responsible for this change in atmosphere but if it was maybe this is not a
bad thing. It will have served to expose the weaknesses of oudeis which I
believe are primarily those so succinctly stated by Aaron "time, money, and
organizational structure."
Time was a major problem with both MMK and AEC but since we were given
these opportunities, and even more importantly money, by these
organizations, they were "offers we couldn't refuse." Of course, the money
didn't cover much of the equipment. Most of the equipment had to be loaned
to us by MMK, AEC and various sponsors. This led to its own set of
problems with the main one being that necessary equipment was not in place
up to the very night before the performance. This even included cables.
This should serve as an answer to those who wondered why we could not
schedule rehearsals earlier than we did.
Now, regarding the organizational structure, very simply, there was none.
When I arrived in Vienna, a full month before the performance, there was no
foundation and no structure. Virtually all technical and logistical
concerns had to be worked out. At this point, Aaron and Christian were not
on board (thank god we had Rainer). There was no equipment in place and we
weren't even sure where the performance would occur in AEC. These are just
some of the problems. I won't bother to list the others. There are
several points I am trying to make here. The first is, given these
circumstances it is rather amazing that instead of disaster we actually
succeeded. As Dan said,
"Oudeis has done two performances in a very short period of time. You all
have pulled it off."
Of course, we did not do everything we wanted but on June 26 and September
12 we did absolutely all that we were capable of doing at those times. It
may have been a very minor success or it may have been a major success. I
think what will eventially decide how successful we were is the way we use
the knowledge we have gained from MMK and AEC to further our goals.
We have already acknowledged that our problems were time, money, and
organizational structure, and that these elements were responsible for what
didn't work with AI 2.
Now, I would like to state what I believe did work:
1. I believe we clearly demonstrated the connection we were trying to make
between the Internet and theatre.
2. We showed the value of the Internet as a tool for collaboration.
3. We based the performance on Homer's epic poem (not a Disney character)
and, however briefly, we contrasted today's technology with the oral
traditions of Homer's time.
4. We had a multilingual performance which served to show the global
quality of oudeis. After all, Twyla, Boris, and Juli were participating in
a live performance from various places across the planet and in different
languages.
5. With all the difficulties (I am still having nightmares ;-)) we managed
to show that we could create something real and tangible. We showed that
oudeis was not just a fantasy. This was perhaps the greatest
accomplishment of both MMK and AEC.
6. Finally, the reason I believe we succeeded was because, with all of the
obstacles in our way, we, the oudeis team, showed that we could work
together in the most adverse of circumstances, with very little resources
and still create something for which we could all hold our heads high.
Now for Freiburg. Georg continued later in his mail:
>First, I am sorry that I was not at the MOO meeting on Freiburg. Still,
>I want to say that I think it is a fairly bad idea to go there because
>it just takes time and concentration away of the real project which we
>can not afford. If we still have to try out things by the time Freiburg
>takes place, oudeis will never happen.
If the goal is still to have a world-wide performance on several stages
(whether it be 5 or 7) using real and virtual actors with the Internet as
an additional stage (which I still believe is the goal), then I think Georg
is correct.
Furthermore, for the purposes of discussion I think Freiburg should be
divided into two parts:
1. Whether or not we want to have a MOO/web performance next?
2. If we decide to have a MOO/web performance, do we need to have it
connected to Freiburg?
Regarding the first point, will it serve the interests and final goal of
oudeis to have a MOO/web performance or will take energy and time from the
ultimate goal?
My personal feeling is that there are other concerns that should be
addressed first before we have a MOO/web performance (or is it a
demonstration?). In this I think Dan and Georg are both right. We need to
resolve some fundamental issues before we go in this direction. However,
if the decision is to go on with some sort of MOO/web performance then I
think we should consider scaling back to just a MOO performance (or
possibly a MOO + surf_and_turf) which would be much less demanding on time
and resources. My fear is that to include the web in this will be to drain
our time, people and resources to a much greater extent than we now imagine.
On the second point, why Freiburg? If we are going to do a MOO or MOO/web
performance we can do this on our own. We do not need an educational media
conference in Freiburg to realize this. Contrary to MMK and AEC, they are
not offering money or equipment. In fact, they are actually demanding a
substantial amount of money (in effect a type of vanity press). And, what
do they give us in return for this money, an artificial deadline and very
little else. Yes, they do open our exposure to a slightly bigger group but
this could also be accomplished with the presentation of a paper by Juli
they way Mon did in Chicago with ATHE. I say if we are going to do a MOO
or a MOO/web performance, then let's do it, but not with an educational
conference that makes significant demands on our resources while offering
little in return.
Now, concerning where we should go next, I am going to throw in my two
American pennies to go with Georg's two Euro-cents:
In my opinion, it is important to get a solid plan together but before we
put this plan together we need to test out the feasibility of certain ideas.
In one of the recent mails there was some mention about tests being done
this Spring. I don't know what the details are about this but I do believe
that oudeis should now go into a testing phase and that we shouldn't wait
until Spring. As I said, this would enable us to see what is feasible and
help us in formulating a working plan. My suggestion for a testing
schedule is as follows:
1. Let's stop fooling around and finally do a preliminary test on the
light cones. We need to see if they are simply capable of producing a cone
that is sufficient for our theatrical needs. We also need to see if it
appears to be gimmicky. All we have to do is get one light (varilight or
whatever), and a smoke machine. This is and has been a major component of
the discussion for a long time. There is no reason to wait any longer for
this. We NEED to know if the light cones work. If they do not work, then
we need to come up with a replacement.
2. If the light cones work we should next test their full range of
capabilities through on-site manipulation (off-site manipulation would come
later). This would include mobility, color, etc. Again, this could be
done with a single light and smoke machine.
3. We should test the interaction between a light cone and a real actor.
Does this work? Does this appear gimmicky?
4. We should test the interaction between two light cones. Again, does
this work or does it appear gimmicky?
This would be a good start and would greatly help us in formulating a
workable plan which I think should be based around the outlines (goals)
suggested by Georg in his mail and repeated in this letter.
Happy Halloween, Ghosts and Goblins!
Lee