10.25
Rising 06.45. On the street first thing: I Advance Masked – Day Twenty-Two…
Morning Sitting, reading and listening. An online post indicated one visitor was about to order a book. Books are expensive. A report of my reading should not be interpreted as recommendations for others. Unless I know the person, their interests and level of experience, they may well hand over their hard-earned pay and be disappointed. Some books I read are highly recommended, but only for some, and subject to the above criteria.
16.33 Twisting Persons for Easter Sunday Lockdown Lunch…
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=274681623539174
17.12 An excellent lunch, which included Squerds (two colours). Practising, once again subject to the creepings of Sweetlips Willcox and her Sneaky Toes. Garden watering. Up the stairs to the top library.
17.46 Recent reflection…
One version of True: when our worldview exactly represents the World.
Currently reflecting on recent buzzings from The Wasps’ Nest of Facebook. Ms. Barone’s initial post refers to a Frippertronics in-store presentation in 1979.
Pam Barone: Mr. Fripp sat in a record store in Kansas City, Kansas one night and played. He answered questions and signed his name to all sorts of things. I was married to a record collector at the time. My husband had brought his copy of Red. It had John Wetton's and Bill Bruford's autograph on the cover and when Mr. Fripp signed, I said " this will make my husband very happy, having all three autographs." And with his eyes on me, Mr. Fripp signed another name. I was clueless, I just liked KC music. When I brought the record back to DH, he reacted angrily and explained that the extra signature was David Cross. Took me a few years to begin to understand the lesson. I don't ask for autographs or pictures with performers anymore. They owe me nothing but the music.
Doug Tingvall Wasn't the purpose of Mr. Fripp's appearance at the record store to greet fans, take pictures and sign autographs? Ms. Barone did not interrupt him during dinner with friends or family. He was there for the very purpose for which Ms. Barone approached him. Mr. Fripp speaks frequently about the contract between performer and audient. In this case, Mr. Fripp breached that contract. That's the message I get from stories like this.
Mark Laska Doug Tingvall Exactly. No need to muddle the facts.
Mark Laska Fripp will sign autographs if there is a monetary reward for himself. That's how rich people think.
Ron Gaynor: Doug Tingvall - at best, it appeared to be a mean-spirited act in an attempt to ruin a wife's surprise to do something that would make her loved one's day! Rather petty... But hey...
Doug Tingvall Contracts are about fulfilling reasonable expectations.
The story, if accurate, sounds exactly like a circumstance creating a reasonable expectation where the artist would sign her husband’s album. This situation seems to satisfy all four of (RF’s) conditions — it was the right time, person, place and circumstance to request the autograph. The artist does owe something to the fans that support them and enable them to practice their craft. The only objection I can think of was that her husband had not purchased the album at the event where something else was being promoted. If that is the objection, I do not accept it. The husband purchased the album at some point. I would see it differently if the album were a bootleg or an album to which the artist did not contribute.
Doug Tingvall I understand that celebrities receive unreasonable requests all the time. They are not “owned” by their fans, but they should respect their fans who enable them to make a living.
Doug Tingvall If the artist voluntarily participates in and accepts the benefits of a promotional event where autographs (and photographs) are customary given, then the artist has implicitly consented to and accept those protocols (unless, as I have said, the artist announces the variance in advance of the event and thereby changes the attendees' expectations).
Doug Tingvall …because the artist has chosen to participate in a promotional activity with established customs and protocols. If the artist does not wish to honor those protocols, then the artist either should not participate (and forego the benefits) or announce that the artist does not wish to follow usual protocols (“no autographs, please”).
Doug Tingvall …the artist has chosen to voluntarily participate in a promotional event of value to the artist.
Doug Tingvall But, once the decision has been made to no longer sign memorabilia, the artist should no longer attend events where autographs are customarily requested and given. That way, no one is disappointed. If the artist wishes to attend such events without confirming to customary expectations, then the burden is on the artist to indicate in promotional materials, “no autographs, please,” as some artists do with photographs. Otherwise, usual protocols apply.
Doug Tingvall But, once the decision has been made to no longer sign memorabilia, the artist should no longer attend events where autographs are customarily requested and given. That way, no one is disappointed. If the artist wishes to attend such events without confirming to customary expectations, then the burden is on the artist to indicate in promotional materials, “no autographs, please,” as some artists do with photographs. Otherwise, usual protocols apply.
Doug Tingvall …the autograph was not requested at a concert, but at a record store where the artist was promoting a new project. Presumably, he was signing autographs for others. We do not why the husband did not attend personally. Given that he was a fan, I assume he could not attend for some reason (e.g., work, childcare, illness, disability, etc.).
Doug Tingvall …the elements were all present here. But, we’re not just talking about a legal obligation. Most artists would have signed the album for a fan at a record store promotion.
Doug Tingvall …consideration is defined as a benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee. The act of coming to the record store promotion and waiting in line to meet the artist constitutes consideration to fulfill reasonable expectations in light of the nature of the event.
Doug Tingvall But, the imposition to the artist of giving an autograph (again, in the context of a record store promotion) is slight compared to the joy brought to the fan. I happen to have a hand-written letter from Mr. Fripp from 1976 and it is a prized possession. I would never sell it. I had written a long fan letter to Mr. Fripp and didn’t expect a reply. But, I was thrilled to receive the reply. As I said above, I am a huge fan of Mr. Fripp. I love his work and admire his contributions to modern music. But, I find his attitude on this issue to be unfortunate.
Doug Tingvall … I’m not a celebrity, but I am a well-known and we’ll-respected attorney in my field in Seattle. I often speak at conventions, conferences and seminars. After such events, attendees often wish to meet me and/or ask questions and I’m happy to indulge them. It’s a minor annoyance that means something to them.
Mr. Fripp is a legend — probably the best prog guitarist ever. I would encourage him to reconsider his position on requests like that of the wife who wrote the original post. To be gracious is a virtue.
Doug Tingvall But, the imposition to the artist of giving an autograph (again, in the context of a record store promotion) is slight compared to the joy brought to the fan. I happen to have a hand-written letter from Mr. Fripp from 1976 and it is a prized possession. I would never sell it. I had written a long fan letter to Mr. Fripp and didn’t expect a reply. But, I was thrilled to receive the reply. As I said above, I am a huge fan of Mr. Fripp. I love his work and admire his contributions to modern music. But, I find his attitude on this issue to be unfortunate.
Five Questions for Mr. Tingvall…
RF: If Mr. Tingvall reads this, would he please address these five questions...
1. …the artist has chosen to voluntarily participate in a promotional event of value to the artist…
What value does Mr. Tingvall believes accrued to me from the event?
2. …their fans who enable them to make a living.
How?
3. …we’re not just talking about a legal obligation …consideration is defined as a benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee. The act of coming to the record store promotion and waiting in line to meet the artist constitutes consideration to fulfill reasonable expectations in light of the nature of the event.
Mr. Tingvall is a lawyer. Is it his professional opinion that there was a legal contract extant / in effect between the attendees at the record store in Kansas City, and myself, that evening in 1979?
What are those reasonable expectations in light of the nature of the event that I was (perhaps contractually obliged) to meet, please?
5. …the imposition to the artist of giving an autograph (again, in the context of a record store promotion) is slight compared to the joy brought to the fan.
Would Mr. Tingvall explain his criteria for this value judgement, please?
One Question from Mr. Tingvall…
1. Wasn't the purpose of Mr. Fripp's appearance at the record store to greet fans, take pictures and sign autographs?
RF: No.
One Question for Mr. Laska…
Mark Laska: Fripp will sign autographs if there is a monetary reward for himself. That's how rich people think.
RF: Will Mr. Laska please explain his thinking here, please?
Elephant Talk, Number 342, Thursday, 6 February 1997
(Part Two)
Date: 05 Feb 97 12:09:29 EST
Subject: from Robert Fripp
Monday, February 3rd. 1997.
IV
We have different degrees and kinds of interest in King Crimson. Most of the functional and factual questions have already been answered, somewhere, in the past 27 years and often in ET.
A suggestion: volunteers to collate a data bank of information on various topics. Then, if anyone is in doubt about the repercussions of confronting a judge resulting from one's inability to tell the age of young people and a love of confectionary, just scroll through to "Lyrics: Easy Money / Variant I(b)ii". The collected Gig Reviews form an impressive body of direct criticism / commentary on KC (and its enthusiasts) in action.
Second suggestion: the ongoing debate on the audience / performer relationship is building up a goodly amount of considered contributions. Who might be able to collate, and summarise, these two (with or without standard questionaire)?
Sincerely, Robert Fripp.
DGM GUESTBOOK
I
Concert photography and the Balance of Rights
Posted by DevlinC on September 17, 2007
CD: This is going to be a long post, feel free to completely ignore it but I’d be interested in other people’s opinions.
RF: A post as instructive as Mr. Devlin’s is difficult to ignore and, invited and assured of Mr. Devlin’s interest in reading them, my considered responses follow.
CD: Tonight I saw David Sylvian at the Royal Festival Hall. He was utterly fantastic, and as Toby Howard says you should all go see him if he comes through your area. However, the evening was soured briefly by the photography policy either of the RFH or Sylvian himself (I very much hope it’s the former).
RF: Clearly, wherever the photo policy originated, it didn't affect Mr. Devlin’s conduct. If the policy was owned by the RFH, then – you dopes! take that! If it was David, then - you’re utterly fantastic! take that!
The distinction is not clear to me; the behaviour remains the same.
CD: Before the concert began we were treated to this hilarious announcement: "We ask that you do not use photography as it may be dangerous to the performers". The entire audience laughed as one - it’s one thing to say that flash photography can be distracting but to say that ANY photography is actually dangerous is really just completely ridiculous.
RF: This does seem ridiculous, and a public announcement this bald is more likely to provoke an audience than enlist their support, much as with Mr. Devlin. The announcement might have said: photography that does not aim to support the performer, performance and/or event is unlikely to be useful; if photographer intends to take, with no sense of contributing and/or giving, the act of photography is a risk to the health of the performance and therefore dangerous.
But this is not appropriate at many performances. It sounds kinda clunky and, unless the announcer had lived the words, experienced the experiences over nearly 4 decades on 4 continents (that is, unless the announcer knew what they were talking about), the words would lack weight, resonance and authority. It might seem ridiculous, even to a supportive audient who had come to engage with the evening and contribute their ears. So, how clunky would it sound to an innocent audient who, intending to take away some good memories, something to watch in 10 years, 20 years has brought along viddy equipment to employ here and there?
Perhaps an appeal to the audience’s respect for the performer’s feelings, rather than declarations of potential danger, would have been more likely to succeed? Although, I feel, not with Mr. Devlin.
A few words on Announcements…
Firstly, announcements suck. But sometimes announcements are necessary. One of the reasons announcements are necessary is, if they are not made, audients who have come to photo / viddy / record may claim, dishonestly, that they just didn’t know! nothing was said! I didn't read the back of the ticket! I didn't see the signs posted everywhere my eyes fell – because I was looking the other way with my head in the equipment bag! In other words, the announcement removes a level of seeming-legitimacy from those who have come to feed.
Secondly, when announcements are made by the venue / promoters / security staff, they suck even more than that. Why?
1. There is someone in the venue’s staff who wants to make the announcement, to draw attention to themselves. An announcement to several hundred / thousand people is a good way to get it; and if you piss off the crowd, you’ll get even more attention. Who cares if the crowd blames the artist for the dumb announcement? You’ve got their attention.
2. The person making the announcement doesn’t want to make the announcement, for all manner of reasons, including:
they don't like the artist and think the artist is dumb to ask for no photography or recording;
they do like the artist but think they’re dumb to ask for no photography or recording;
they are afraid of speaking in public.
3. The announcer has no skills or talent for public speaking whatsoever, which communicates itself to whoever hears them. This lack of competence, commitment and comprehension communicates itself more effectively than the words being spoken - in halting, hesitant, diffident, fearful tones. The overall message translates as: this is nonsense, I have no confidence in it, I am terrified to even mention it, so ignore and laugh.
Thirdly, announcements that run counter to common-practices of musical-performance as mediated-by-commerce (ie a commodity sale to consumers who have-rights-to-do-whatever-they-want because they have parted-with-their-hard-earned-pay which they have given to promoters who give-little-concern-to-artistic-aspiration – it’s pretentious anyway! – and would rather keep the punters sweet so they come back next time and feed on the next pretentious artist – hey! don’t they want to sell more tickets?) are banging right up against a solid wall of expectation. Announcements that run counter to gravity are likely to generate hilarity, hostility and/or both.
So, what to do?
In RF-related performances, where possible, we get a member of our Team to make the announcement. In the US, John Sinks is superb at this: a regular guy with punter instincts and no attitude to set off a reasonable audient attending with goodwill, John aims to engage audience understanding / consideration / good manners.
In Argentina with The LCG (June 2007), we found that local announcers failed impressively to convey our requests / intent; so we provided our own announcer-person. Even this failed on several occasions. We invite courtesy; otherwise, politeness. But good manners & kindness are not easily within the reach of audients who attend without goodwill and unwilling to exert themselves to support the performance.
CD: Anyway, the concert begins - spellbinding. He comes to a track called Ride, a song that has some significance to me for reasons I won’t bother going into here, and I decide that I want something to remember this by.
RF: How about: by being there, in the moment?
CD: I pull out my camera and film the concert for about 30 seconds.
RF: Well, that’s another approach.
CD: I may have filmed a little longer but I already feel like I’m concentrating more on the recording than the listening so I wouldn’t have gone longer than a minute –
RF: A man has to know his limitations.
CD: however, I don’t have the opportunity to decide for myself because security is soon on my back telling me to turn it off, like a nanny scolding a child..
RF: One of the lessons of (early) childhood is that we can’t do everything that we want to do;
one of the lessons of (later) childhood is that everything we do has consequences;
one of the lessons of early adulthood is that we are held accountable for our actions;
one of the lessons of growing maturity is, we can do whatever we will - if we are able to deal with the repercussions of our behaviour.
That is, we can do whatever we like, if we can pick up the tab; and picking up the tab depends upon us recognizing, acknowledging & accepting that what we do has consequences, for self & community.
The necessary is possible;
The optional is expensive;
The unnecessary is unlikely.
An attribute of mature adulthood is that we are able to act in accordance with social norms, regardless of our personal feelings towards those norms.
Security did not treat Mr. Devlin in accordance with his estimation of self-worth – and boy! is he pissed. Mr. Devlin knows better; his behaviour has no consequence; he has rights; and security weren’t aware he was free to behave in any way he wanted, regardless of others. Security insulted him! Those nanny-creeps!
A few words on Security…
Security practices are brought in when appeals to decency, common humanity, courtesy, even politeness, fail. That is, when The Basement is rampant, one effect is active security. Where good manners and/or honest conduct are not a part of the social polity, the proximate step that follows is a police force. If a venue posts a House Rule, conventionally it is policed by security staff. Security staff bring their own interests and agenda, that are not inevitably those of the artist, audience and performance. At this point, everyone loses.
Long experience and observation suggests that security staff are rarely instruments of subtlety, nor given to empathizing with audients (and often, not with artists). Their job is to maintain the declared house rules of acceptable conduct. Where audience behaviour is considerate and mannered, the security presence is light.
When rigid security has a major presence, the performance is already undermined. Often, security stands in front of the stage. This is awful. At my performances, conventionally, I ask the security staff to move to the side of the stage and out of the sightlines. The performer is there to engage the audience, not be protected from them. That is, unless audients are dangerous.
CD: However, it seems to be alright for the 5 press photographers down the front of the stage for the first 10 minutes and it’s alright for the owners of the 3 video cameras that are perched on top of the mixing desk for the front-of-house.
RF: Professional photography / viddying may or may not be all right, but it is has the artist’s permission. That is, the action is consensual.
One reason artists film / record themselves is to create an archive that might become available to the public; and one of the reasons for creating an archive in this way is to negate arguments of the innocent audient claiming to legitimize their behaviour - I only want to capture the performance for posterity! to preserve the legacy! This is a lie: the innocent audient is capturing the performance for themselves – good memories and something to watch in 10 years, 20 years – rather than altruistically serving the wider interests of Culture: Our Future Heritage Preserved.
The artist may film and record themselves for a variety of reasons - personal, artistic, professional; but often this is a result of professional pressure being applied to the artist. Without a picture, the NY Times won’t do a review; an important magazine won’t run a feature. So, this moves to a strategy of containment: how much, when and where in the show.
In KC, for years, we allowed photography for the first 3 songs. But the disruption and distraction of professional photographers undermined the beginning. The beginning is liminal, vulnerable; and the beginning is half of the whole. If the beginning is undermined by a professional feeding frenzy, it takes most of the set to return to a beginning-point. So, KC moved professional photography to the encore slot. This didn't work for everyone in the band, because they’re sweaty and look messy in pictures. So, we moved to the next stage: no photography, period. This entails a willingness to move out of the mainstream spotlight; this carries considerable professional consequences.
The main KC photographic exceptions to this are, historically, Bill Munyon and Tony Levin; both are members of the Crim Team. And one of the reasons for Bill’s extensive Crim photography after 2000 is to counter the spurious, dishonest I only want to preserve the legacy! claim.
Sometimes, photo rights have a high commercial value (although not with Crimson!) and are factored into the performer’s overall business strategy.
None of this is the concern of the audient - unless the photography undermines the performance and the audient’s experiencing. For me, it does. Professional photography and filming interrupts my listening experience (as does audient photography and filming). In audient role, I find much professionally-consensual photography to be disruptive. So, I accept this is a legitimate professional choice of the performer, and they are unlikely to extract my hard-earned pay in the future.
To this extent, I agree with Mr. Devlin. My right is not, however, to undermine the performance by acting in any way I consider good for me; my right is to direct my patronage elsewhere.
It’s easy: if I am not prepared to abide by the House Rules, I am not compelled to attend. It is inherently unfair that innocent audients – whose behaviour has no effect! who have consumer rights! who are preserving the legacy! - can choose whichever artist they want to support / feed on for future happy memories, but that the artist has no corresponding right to decline to engage with them.
CD: If photography is so terribly harmful
RF: Which photography? Photography by the artist and/or their Team to monitor their work? Consensual photography? Surreptitious photography? Photography that hovers waiting for a moment to pounce – here and there?
CD: it would seem to me that no one should be allowed to do it, not even the performers themselves
RF: Some artists welcome photography. Some object strongly. Perhaps some have little concern either way. A blanket prohibition misses qualitative differences in performance worlds and traditions.
CD: - if they think it might harm their performance, isn’t it disrespectful to risk screwing up in front of those of us who paid?
RF: This is quite a leap. How about:
the performer feels that consensual photography does not prejudice their performance;
that photography agreed and/or directed by them supports their personal, professional and artistic aims;
none of this requires justification by them to an audient who has no experience of the life, little respect for their concerns and requests, whose interest is in demanding rights to which they have no entitlement – because they’ve bought a ticket with their hard-earned pay?
CD: How does it make a difference who owns the camera that is filming?
RF: This goes to intentionality, consensuality, responsibility, generosity, participation, contribution; qualitative distinctions and subtle matters which generate effects in inverse proportion to their visibility. So, is a camera in TLev’s hands different to one in Mr. Devlin’s?
CD: For years Fripp has been on a no-photography trip but much of that has to do with an obnoxious flash going off.
RF: Mr. Devlin fails to do justice to my views. But then, were he to do so, Mr. Devlin’s conduct would be called into question. Actually, Mr. Devlin fails so successfully to grasp my views as to merit the Clueless & Slightly Slack award for missing the point.
CD: Also, if I were filming the whole concert to then go and sell on eBay it would be a different story.
RF: This would then be professional theft, rather than personal, theft. This is a qualitative distinction?
CD: But 30 seconds here and there for good memories? Something to watch in 10 years, 20 years? Silent, flashless and occasional photography? Why is that such an enormous strain on a bunch of musicians who aren’t even aware of it happening?
RF: Mr. Devlin is making several points:
1. I didn't do very much, so it has no effect on the performance.
2. No one can see what I’m doing, so what I do has no effect anyway.
3. They can’t possibly be aware of my surreptitious actions – so this proves it can’t have any effect!
4. It will give me good memories as I get older! So, fuck you.
5. Why should what I do disturb anyone who has asked me not to do it? The artist’s judgement call is arbitrary and irrelevant - so fuck them!
If Mr. Devlin considers David Sylvian to be an exceptional artist, as seems to be the case (and I agree with this view, both as punter and collaborator) then why does Mr. Devlin discount this exceptional artist’s request? This is surely disrespectful and, at the least, rude.
Mr. Devlin declares his action in filming David and the Team had personal value (for reasons he won’t bother going into here). Mr. Devlin continues… and I decide that I want something to remember this by.
Intention is tangible, and a decision has power: decision is an act of will. When intention moves to action, there are repercussions. The filming was not a careless act by Mr. Devlin, nor an accident: the camera / viddy machine did not conceal itself about his person when he left home, fall into his hand at the venue, switch itself on of its own volition and then balance itself in Mr. Devlin’s grasp for 30 seconds while facing the stage.
Mr. Devlin wanted something for himself from the event – good memories in 10 or 20 years! - and he went for it, not only contrary to the expressed wishes of the artists (however clumsily these were expressed by the RFH announcer) but despite them. It is disingenuous of Mr. Devlin to suggest that his intentional action had no effect: the purpose of intentional action is to generate effect/s and repercussions.
Mr .Devlin offers various justifications for his behaviour:
1. he didn’t like the announcement – therefore he wasn’t bound by it;
2. no-one would know what he did! no-one could know he was doing!
3. he was disrespected - because security asked him to stop doing what he knew he had been asked not to do!
Mr. Devlin is hovering – here and there - waiting his moment/s to snap and viddy away. Hovering atmosphere-suckers contribute a negative presence, and instinctively know when to strike: at points of vulnerability. The most vulnerable moments are during a phase-shift, a transition between key stages in a process, when a performance is poised to lift off. This liminal moment is a point of maximum vulnerability, and if the performance is upset here, has something taken from it, the process may unwind & the performance not recover; this comment from long & unhappy experience.
So, regardless of Mr. Devlin’s categorical denial on the subject, can subtle shifts in the performance atmosphere be detected? The quick answer is, yes. Some artists (and audients) are even aware of non-contributing members of the audience, despite some posters attributing this awareness to extra-sensory powers and psychic gifts. The awareness of audients-with-attitude picks up on cues, some of which are overt, some less so.
CD: …a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the performer and the rights of the audience, and at the moment it’s entirely one-sided.
RF: So:
What rights are proper to the audience?
What rights are proper to the performer?
What obligations are proper to the audience?
What obligations are proper to the performer?
CD: Fripp talks about lack of respect when an audience member takes a picture, but I found my experience tonight to be hugely disrespectful to me just for enjoying something enough to want to remember it whilst maintaining a position of non-interference.
RF: Mr. Devlin raises three points:
a lack of respect for his person;
remembrance;
maintaining a position of non-interference.
Firstly, respect.
1. Why would Mr. Devlin expect respect from security staff for manifesting conduct contrary to that requested and which went against declared house rules?
2. Why would Mr. Devlin expect respect in the first place, from anyone?
Secondly, remembrance.
What is memory? How do we remember?
A photo / viddy / bootleg is an aide-memoire; it is not the memory, but a finger pointing to the memory. A memory is not the experience, but a way of re-connecting to the experience. A qualitative experience exists outside the time-flow of our mundane and everyday lives, but remains available to us when we re-enter the same “quality time” where our experiencing continues to resonate. Contacting / connecting to the experience, then, is more a question of letting-go of our demands on the experience and not trying to pin-down its quality in representational form.
Mr. Devlin:
happy memories & enjoying something enough to want to remember it - by filming, photography and recording.
William Blake:
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy;
But he who catches a joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity's sunrise.
Thirdly, non-interference.
How can behaviour that takes place within a performance, against the declared House Rules and requests, possibly be categorized as non-interference? It is not even close to non-interference: this is interference! How is hovering – here and there - waiting for a moment to snap away, non-interference? This is an ongoing state of preparedness-to-act. This comment wins Mr. Devlin a second Clueless & Slightly Slack award, for Reality-Inversion.
Non-interference is a very high condition; a better term is radical neutrality.
Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently is founded on the principle of the fundamental inter-connectedness of all things. Everything is connected, whether we wish it to be, or not. Everything action has an effect, whether we know it or not. Any act has repercussions, whether we are aware of them or not. We will never know the full extent of how our effect becomes a cause and, in turn, generates other effects. But, in right action, the effects tend towards “rightness” themselves. Otherwise, the repercussions may become overwhelming.
Mr. Devlin is arguing that only appearances have effect; only what you can see happening is happening. If you can't see someone doing something, they’re not doing it! And if they’re only doing it a little bit – they’re not doing it even more than that! His focus is on the externals.
It is disingenuous of Mr. Devlin to suggest that his intentional action of viddying is non-interference. A state of non-interference, ie an engaged state of active neutrality, is not accidental, exceptionally difficult state to “acquire”, perhaps available to years of practicing a personal discipline.
Radical neutrality does not take the initiative: it is not doing something.
Radical neutrality does not respond / react to conditions or arising initiatives.
Radical neutrality does nothing – as much as it can! – and, while not-doing, enables doing to take place. It is part impartiality, part reconciliation, part pure-presence, all invisibility.
And it doesn’t hold a camera.
CD It seems to me like this no photography stuff is getting a little too heavy-handed, and I hope I’m not the only one - a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the performer and the rights of the audience, and at the moment it’s entirely one-sided.
RF: I have yet to be in a performance context where I have been able to dictate the rules. If my “rules of the show” were dictated and enforceable, this posting and much like it would not have taken place on ET, nor be taking place on the DGM Guestbook now. I note, whether Mr. Devlin has the right to photography or not, it hasn’t changed his behaviour: he snaps and viddies away, regardless.
A characteristic of performance in popular culture, mediated by commerce, is of performance as a background to photography, viddying, recording et al, accompanied by demands for rights to all such practices from a significant part of the audience. If the performer declines to engage, or asks that these practices be left outside the venue, the reactions tend to these:
I have the right:
to your attention, acknowledgement and personal friendship!
because I’ve handed over my hard-earned pay!
because you have a career thanks to me / is dependent on my support!
because I’m invisible – no one sees what I’m doing!
I only did it a little bit anyway!
no one is sensitive / perceptive enough to know what I’ve done!
other people did far worse than me!
it happens everywhere - so why not here?
I don't like the way you asked me not to!
I don't do it for money – I’m not a thief!
I’ll do it anyway – because I can and you can’t stop me!
I also have rights outside the performance space to:
demand autographs, photographs, viddying;
stare continuously wherever I see you;
follow you around;
arrive at your hotel for a drink with you;
anything else that I might think of!
because you owe it all to me! and I have the right!
A balance of rights?
"A test of our understanding is whether we can apply it in practice."
