Posted on 2 Comments

No More Heroes

a picture of the 199 bus
a picture of the 199 bus
Image shared by Nico Hogg on flickr via CC

I am sat on a bus. Except I’m not. Because actually my charger broke for my phone a day ago. So when I’m having this thought, I’m on a bus. Even though right now, literally right now, I am sat on a patchwork quilt that took my mum 4 months to make with a slightly too hot soya hot chocolate next to me. But I am also sat on a bus. And I am thinking about heroes. I’m listening to a Radiolab episode. I managed to dig out an old phone that will hold audio even though I don’t have a sim card that will work for it and I don’t have the time to add anything but a single podcast before I run for the 225, earlier. I stand on the doorstep and watch the download icon swing to 360 degrees. I run. I run in that way that’s always not right because I’m not wearing running shoes and I worry it makes me look pathetic. I miss the 225, anyway. So I walk to Lewisham High Street instead and I intend on getting the 47 but I look at the orange lit sign and there’s a 199. I know the 199 will get me to the same place but it goes a slightly different way and that’s not the problem the problem is I haven’t got on the 199 since Tom broke up with me. Somehow, though, today that’s OK. I had my hair cut. I’m going to see some old friends from Leeds. I’m going to drink beer with people with accidental beards and proper consonants. So I flag it. I get on. And I sit in my usual seat, top deck front left. I decide not to waste the audio, and I read a book instead.

I am sat on a bus. Another one. This bus is 3 hours later and this time I wait longer than necessary but find a 225. I am sat on this bus and I am thinking about heroes. Radiolab is talking about Nihilism, and really it’s a philosophy that rankles with me. I struggle with it. It’s dirty. It says everything is mud, and aren’t we clever for writhing in it. Aren’t we clever for throwing it, we’re not making it worse. Look, I built a mudman out of it. Here, here’s a carrot for the nose. It touches on Dada, which I know enough about as I did a bit on it in my PhD, and then there’s Beyonce’s husband in the desert. I can’t remember his name when I write this. But apparently he’s in the desert with a denim jacket on that says something like ‘in the dust of this planet’ and they’re talking about the appeal of nihilism in an era of climate change. And then the costume designer, the costume designer who put Beyonce’s husband in the jacket, says that to her, for her, the jacket wasn’t about saying ‘there is nothing and that’s ok’, to her, it’s saying ‘there is nothing, and I am not afraid.’. For Jad Abumrad on radiolab that jacket is now about being a hero. And I think about the broken construct: hero. How I always want to be one. How the thing some of the best interactive theatre often shows me is that I’m good at leading but when I lead I’m not necessarily good. How when I daydream, it’s always me saving people. I dream of saving people I love but haven’t told yet from traffic. I dream of becoming an accidental viral image at a protest. I dream of saying a thing that will be whispered all around the country. And when I dream at night, I dream in the genre of apocalyptic, or mystic, or fantastic thriller. I’m always surviving, just, always fighting back, always escaping some half-known villain. Hero. Hero. Hero. And today I think “maybe that’s the last bit of Tomboy that I need to drop”, I think “heroes do not save us in the situations that face us, climate change cannot be solved by one person, or one state. Notions of collectivism always dissolve in the loss of the heroes who put it in place. Gamergate is founded on the fundamental notion: we are the heroes, not you.

I am sitting on a bus. And I am thinking about heroes. About how it’s time to let them go. How it’s time I stopped wanting to be one, and other people stopped waiting for them and we find a new way to tell stories, to listen to them, to be a part of them. And then I find my stop (Thornford Road), and get off. Walk home. I make myself a slightly drunken hot chocolate. I try to drink it. It is too hot. So I write this. Post it. Edit the mistakes. Click ‘update’.

Posted on 2 Comments

What we mean when we talk about interaction.

So I’m burrowing away in the old PhD at the moment. Only about 4 months to go so I’m in the process of researching and writing the last chapter and some case studies, before heading into full redraft ‘let’s make this make sense’ territory. Re-reading chapter 2 (written in my first year) as I work up some case studies for it, for example, made me simultaneously proud of how far I’ve come and weep at the job I’ve yet to do. Anyway, for those of you who don’t know (actually that’s everyone including my supervisor because I tweaked it, again) my thesis title is roughly this:

First-person theatre; how performative tactics and frameworks (re)emerging in the digital age are forming a new personal-as-political

I’ve just finished writing a chapter called “First-person theatre and the body; transcendance vs. transposition” which is all about phenomenology and interactive theatre and why it’s better than immersive theatre in dealing with the frameworks/systems that make up the politics of daily life, and is more effective in terms of tackling the specific breed of capitalism expressed in/via personalisation and pervasive media. Anyway, a big part of talking about interactivity, and a bit part of talking about interactivity demanded defining it. This is a definition I’ve had knocking around in my head for a long while, and which has been informed by my reading since (obvs) and I go on about it so often, and rant so much at people claiming their work is interactive when it isn’t (and doesn’t need to be! ‘Interactive’ is not a synonym for ‘good’ or ‘relevant’ or ‘appeals to young people’) that I thought I may as well post my definition. Y’know, so it’s Out There. So here follows a short extract (extended quote, really) from draft one of chapter 4 of my thesis. Enjoy. If this is your kind of thing.

[…]

At this point it seems appropriate to offer some definitions for words to be used herein that are largely overused with regards to contemporary performance, and indeed most interfaces between the story- and real-world (marketing, News, other art forms, entertainment, etc.); those of ‘interaction’ and ‘immersion’.

Interaction.

The misuse of the term ‘interactive’ – or rather the necessity to talk in greater specificity when discussing interactivity – has been highlighted in more detail in the discussion of games and first-person performance in chapter 3. Steve Dixon likewise raises the issue of ‘levels’ of interaction in his extremely thorough Digital Performance (Dixon, 2007, p. 563). Here we attempt to refine these, along with other notions on the subject discussed in chapter 3 and set forth in other works such as Rules of Play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) and Pervasive Games (Montola, Stenros, & Waern, 2009), to form the following four ‘levels’ of interactivity:

  1. Reactive
  2. Navigational
  3. Conversational
  4. Emergent.

Continue reading What we mean when we talk about interaction.