the call for the 101010 UpStage Festival closed on 31 march, & over the last few weeks vicki, dan & i have been going over the proposals received. every year we get more, & again there is a fascinating variety in ideas and content, & plenty that promises to be great. but also this year, we've noticed an increase in proposals from people who have assumed either that UpStage is a web-casting platform, or that the festival is for web-cast performances using any software. this makes me wonder - are we not articulating clearly what UpStage is & what we are looking for? or is it that as interest in web-casting is growing, people are equating online performance with web-casting? (or both?)
there is clearly increasing interest in live online events; the novelty of web 2.0 user-generated content is waning while general digital literacy continues to rise, so perhaps real-time is the next thing that's going to get jumped on by the hype-merchants. i've been creating real-time performances on the internet for more than a decade now (& others have been doing it for even longer), but still the normal response when i tell people what i do is some variation on "wow, i never heard of that before!". but i smell change on the wind. the success of skype has rescued the web cam from the less salubrious quarters of the internet & embedded it firmly in your laptop frame. at the same time, issues of copyright and privacy are starting to impact on social sites like facebook and over-zealous life-caching activities - making the ephemeral transience of real-time events suddenly more appealing. the limited trace, small footprint, of real-time is also in harmony with the greening of everything: if we're trying to reduce landfills, why not also reduce the digital rubbish heap, all those gigabytes of blurry photos & boring videos? (yes, there IS an environmental cost attached to data storage).
as real-time internet takes hold, there's likely to be a lot more web-casting & distributed events (such as the recent electrosmog festival). none of this is particularly new, but in the same way that email and telecommuting are now mainstream, participation in real-time online events will become regular activities for non-geek people. maybe this will mean we receive even more web-casting proposals for future UpStage festivals - but hopefully also web-casting festivals will emerge, or festivals of online performance that encompass UpStage & other platforms, including web-casting. hopefully also cyberformance will become better understood, & we'll get better at articulating it.
in its simplest form, web-casting involves putting a camera in front of a performance happening in a space such as a theatre, and broadcasting it live via the internet. the primary reason for doing this is usually to make a performance accessible to a wider audience; the use of the internet does not in any way alter the performance, & the performance exists without the web-cast.
not so for cyberformance: the site of the performance IS the internet, the performance is significantly shaped by this, and does not exist without the internet. when a web-cast incorporates some kind of interaction with its online audience it could begin to become cyberformance - but not if the interactivity is not real-time or having an effect on the actual performance. cyberformance employs various internet technologies to bring remote artists and audience together in a real-time event; one of my primary reasons for doing it is to experiment with how remote artists can collaborate on live performance (others may have different reasons). depending on the technologies used, audience participation can range from passive attendance through text chatting to finding themselves standing on the virtual stage. in creating cyberformance, artists draw on all kinds of media - graphics & animations, audio, text, drawing, scripting - as well as web cams. the compilation of multiple media, & the variety of skills involved, make cyberformance truly cross-disciplinary and quite distinct from web-casting. but the UpStage team is always open to possibilities & it looks like several of the web-casting proposals for 101010 may in fact come to fruition in UpStage; it will be really interesting to see how these artists reinterpret their work in the UpStage platform, & what new perspectives they will bring to cyberformance.

Comments
Hi Helen -- although I would
Hi Helen -- although I would take issue with the phrase "the use of the internet does not in any way alter the performance" I do mostly concur with your observations. But regarding that statement: all processes of (mediated) (tele)observation, (tele)seeing, WILL have an affect on the situation being observed as per quantum examples of such. There are a wide scale of spectacles happening in our social system -- all of which set up a certain resonance between observer and the observed. I believe it is more a matter of degree and subtleness of affect if anything -- just as the average person has little idea of the massive global affect of using an iPhone (as it arises from a complex web of basic extractive and formative processes that is global in extent and impact) -- I believe we are not aware of many of the affectations that arise in our current techno-social system and our myriad uses of it. Thinking back on some of the early projects that I worked/participated on/in, like the World-Wide Simultaneous Dance back in 1998, they were about spontaneity, improvisation, a small audience (of participants!), and very much about the establishment of the energy of connection as expressed in the very highly mediated formats (IRC, iVisit 160x120 screens, etc). Streaming 'web-casts' of that time were often simply point-to-point (p2p!) and were sensually attenuated windows that allowed enough feeling for connection to support all kinds of collaborative improv. I'd posit the proposal of a web-cast as a learning moment -- where it is possible to compare and contrast 'push-media' and centre-out broadcasting, and collaborative improv via the network to the benefit of those who have not experienced synchronous distributed events... I don't know if you recall my small presentation/performance at TEKS/Match-making in 2004 -- the point was to illustrate the 'difference' between remote presence and presence, monolog and dialogue... I definitely resonate with the comment on how most people 'don't get it.' It's frustrating -- was talking with Mari Keski-Korsu about this in the context of a live aether9 video stream improv for Camp Pixelache back in March -- she was on the ground in Helsinki projecting the incoming streams, but the audience saw only video, a multiplex moving image on a flat surface. We participants experienced that warm-fuzzy of 8 global live streams feeding off each other along with a good back-channel text chat... Mari had to explain what was happening... Anyway, heading antipodal shortly from summer desert climes of Babylonish cultures. . ."in its simplest form ..."
hi john, thanks for your comment & for rightly taking me to task for my generalisation :) altho, please note that the phrase "the use of the internet does not in any way alter the performance" comes at the end of a sentence beginning "in its simplest form ... " - i was really speaking about webcast performances where the creators of the performance are not primarily constructing something for an online audience. for example, webcasts of live rock concerts, or of a "traditional" theatre performance presented to a proximal audience - situations where the broadcast is being used to enable others outside of the venue to have an experience of the event, but there is no change made to the performance for the online audience. "centre-out broadcasting" is quite a good term for it. whereas networked collaboration is another thing altogether, & what i am interested in. yes, i remember your performance! it was great :) & also aether9 is a good example. speaking of aether9, i have watched a few of their performances & usually find myself in a dual position: on the one hand, knowing something of the technology & processes behind it & that it is all happening live, i'm aware that i'm watching something very complex & interesting unfolding. but on the other hand, i'm also conscious of how it appears to the less-informed viewer - potentially not live, potentially one person playing pre-recorded clips, & no awareness of the back-channel. i also understand this from my work with avatar body collision - we learned to introduce our work with the byline "nothing is prerecorded, everything happens in real time" altho even still at times audience members had difficulty accepting this (when the technology worked too well! ;) you are right, of course, that the mediatisation of webcasting means that the performance IS altered, whether it's intentional or not. & that is interesting, but to me less interesting than the collaborative potential of cyberformance. if you're going as far south as nz, you'd better pack your thermal undies! i hear it's bitterly cold. meanwhile i'm packing for london ... : ) safe travels!