In my experience, digital performance environments require an acute awareness and knowledge of working methods within such infrastructural atmospheres, regardless of how controlled or how open they are. Yet developing strategies based on experience, or imagining the slow evolution of interactional growth (compost) over time, in collaborative work, often remains invisible to all involved.
This is good, as one cannot predict the composting. Kinetic atmospheres are not controllable either.
Any participants in a production of multimedia digital work need to know the kinds of operations set in motion: how they might behave in a digital performance space, how they act upon objects or steer a feedback mechanism and how they negotiate a capturing dispositif that follows their actions and “translates” them. But who follows whom? Furthermore, how do choreographer, designer, dancer and system negotiate the presence of camera sensing apparatus or the invisible communication between smart devices and algorithmic computation? If most of the processes inherent to the algorithmic are micro-performative, taking place outside of the phenomenal field of human perception, is then not all intermedial composition autonomous, acting according to its own logic (or daimon)?
Johannes Birringerback to all PROVOCATIONS