Clarisse Bardiot

Keywords: (5-6) Video recording, performing arts documentation, annotation, data visualisation, metadata

the example of the Rekall software.

Digital technologies and the performing arts have at least one thing in common: their outputs, documents for the former and performances for the latter, are both ephemeral. The perspective of a "Digital Dark Age", or a digital oblivion or generalized amnesia in the contemporary memory, meets the fleeting and fickle nature of live performances. In the introduction of their book Re-collection (on the conservation of new media art) John Ippolito and Richard Rinehart highlight the kinship between the performing and digital arts: "New media art is as performative and variable as it is visual or artifactual. That is, new media art can be seen to be as much a performing art like music or theatre as it is a visual art like painting or sculpture" (Rinehart & Ippolito, 2014, p. 25). In respect to the memory of the performing arts, digital technologies raise different questions: How to appropriate archives, and how to memorize a flow within a corpus of documents? What is the benefit of archiving over other approaches such as video recording or notation? What should be the status of digital documents generated during the creative process? How to document the technological devices used during a performance, such as those used for sound and light management? In other words: how do digital technologies contribute to remembering the performing arts? Answering these questions is no small undertaking, and many experiments are underway to explore the answers, most based on the video recording of performances, which can be digitally annotated. The multiple ways of approaching the annotation of video recording reflects a far from univocal rapport to archives and documents. First, I will outline the main approaches through a state of the art analysis (which does not purport to be complete) on video annotation in the field of the performing arts. Then, I will introduce my current project: Rekall, an open source environment for documenting and analysing staging processes and simplifying the restaging of performances. The software's design is particularly reliant on video recording annotation technologies.

From the distribution to the annotation of video recording

The video recording of performances has long been, and remains, considered a panacea for the documentation of ephemeral performance arts. The ability to make video recordings of performances has indeed brought significant changes to the documentation of the performing arts. Used on a small or larger scale from the introduction of the first video cameras since the 1960s, sometimes systematically in a number of theatre houses, video recording provides visually static and dynamic tracks of a half century of the performing arts -sometimes more with movie recording. The tracks can be collected by a "witness" camera recording the performance, in whole or in part, from the back of the room, or the video recording is intricately processed and edited (multi camera shooting, original remodelled production, etc.), up to the production of made-for-TV, and now for webcast or streaming, "performance movies". The Franco-German television station Arte has created an internet streaming site, Arte Live Web, specifically dedicated to live performances. Furthermore, many performers have made video capturing the cornerstone of their creative process, as illustrated notebooks: based on the various artistic processes, filmed rehearsals can be viewed, analysed, remounted and become the framework for each next rehearsal until the premiere, and sometimes during a tour. At a later stage, these documents are used by researchers interested in the genetic analysis of the artistic process.

Video recordings, often considered as one of the most important tracks of earlier performances, are often at the heart of performance archive digitization and broadcasting programmes. Indeed, the French website numeridanse.tv, an "international online dance video library" launched in 2011 ("Numeridanse.tv," n.d.) is a collective project resulting from the national digitization plan of the French Department of Culture and Communication. It connects choreographic centres in France and abroad, as well as institutions holding dance collections. Numeridanse.tv is comprised of a database containing video recordings of dance performances, along with supporting text. As indicated by the .tv extension, the website is inspired by a televisual model, although future developments identify "web documentaries". Another French initiative worth noting is the acquisition by the Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (INA) of the audiovisual archives of four national theatre houses (Chaillot, Odéon, La Colline, Strasbourg), of the Conservatoire National d'Art Dramatique, and of other theatre and opera houses, adding up to an exceptional collection of performance recordings (and of interview recordings and other documents) from the 1950s to today. In September 2013, part of these digitized materials were included on En scènes ("En Scènes," 2013), a website dedicated to live performances. Working as an "interactive encyclopaedia of live performances", the site contains excerpts and entire movies, supported by their contextual and descriptive information. Thematic browsing enables the exploration of specific genres, time periods, region or subject matter, while the split-screen option is adapted to the simultaneous viewing of the video recording and associated written commentary. The New York Public Library recently implemented a similar system on a much broader scale. Currently in its beta version, the NYPL Digital Collections project ("NYPL Digital Collections," n.d.), is a video collection of live performances, including the Jerome Robbins Dance Division Moving Image Archive. An annotation tool enables the inclusion of text and the comparison of multiple videos. All operations are executed directly on the Web browser and may be saved for future use.

Both En Scènes and the NYPL Digital Collections project exemplify the emerging interest in the annotation of video recordings of live performances. Annotations, the written, graphic or audio commentary parallel to the capture to provide supporting information, differs from notation, or the representation, transcription or recording, in written signs or conventional symbols, of a choreography or music. The product of notation could be a musical score, which would not systematically be the case with annotation. There may always be overlap between annotation and notation, and the line between the two is often blurry. Video recording is not the visual representation of a musical score, it is rarely self-sufficient and requires commentary, analysis, further deciphering. With dance, but also with other performing arts, the performer's corporal memory, as an actual "living archive" is considered as a fundamental aspect of performance memory (Benichou, 2014). Beyond the fascination for a document that appears to contain the essence of the performance, and to be its clearest trace, remains a requirement to fill in the gaps, and broaden the perspective of the image out its context, to the creative process, to words spoken by the entire artistic team, to the reception by the public. An example of complementarity between various supports, purposely nondigital1 , is the recent publication of two works by Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker [START_REF] Keersmaeker | A choreographer's score: Fase, Rosas danst Rosas, Elena's aria[END_REF] [START_REF] Keersmaeker | En atendant & Cesena: a choreographer's score[END_REF] under the title A Choreographer's Score. Both works contain transcriptions of interviews between choreographer and Bojana Cvejić, archive documents, partial musical score, photographs, as well as DVDs of the video recording of the performance being studied, as well as interviews. In these heterogeneous works and multiple synergies, it is difficult to determine whether video recordings is the annotation of the printed materials or vice versa. The ensemble unquestionably demonstrates the complementarity of supports and memories to capture the approach of Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker and conduct an in-depth analysis of works studied. From this standpoint, digital technologies offer infinite possibilities. Without going into too much detail, there are multiple video annotation tools, used in other contexts: Advene, AmiGram, Anvil, ELAN, On the mark, SSI, Vcode/VData, etc. For instance, ELAN has been used to annotate the creative process of multiple choreographies by Rui Horta within the TKB project (A transmedia Knowledge-Base for the performing arts) led by Carla Fernandes of the Universidade Nova in Lisboa [START_REF] Fernandes | Video annotation in the TKB project: Linguistics meets choreography meets technology[END_REF]. Her method consisted in text annotating video recordings of rehearsals, in order to provide details on the creative process. Yet, such tools are rarely used in experiments on the annotation of video recording of the performing arts. A number of hypothesis have been made to explain this: the over-reliance of such software on text, the challenges associated with linking other archival documents, the complexity of use in the time constraints of the capture, for instance in rehearsals, etc.

Development of video annotation systems for the performing arts

This has led to the recent development of initiatives to create applications specific to the needs of the performing arts. These initiatives are undertaken by institutions maintaining archival materials of performances, university research on the documentation of the performing arts, or artistic teams. Although all often collaborate on multidisciplinary programmes, their approaches can be very different and far from overlapping.

One area of research is the development of software akin to the video annotation tools we referred to, but with specific application to live performances. Within the framework of Forsythe's project, PM2GO ("PM2GO," n.d.), a new version of Piecemaker (initiated by David Kern, a dancer of the company, online since 2014) is a text annotation tool for video recordings of rehearsals or performances Sleek and elegant, it offers the possibility to collaboratively comment on rehearsals and performances, and to colour-code groups of annotations.

Other research focuses on graphic annotations directly on the video recording, where comments are superimposed on the film. In 2006, an experiment was made by Zachary Lieberman, Scott deLahunta and Susan Rethorst as part of an archival project on the works of choreographer Siobhan Davies. The result was RotoSketch, an application used as a prototype during the workshop: "The aim of the software tool is to make it possible for a choreographer to annotate video playing in real-time. The prototype has a small set of features that make it possible to record a phrase of movement material and then play it back on a portable tablet computer while drawing directly on the moving image. The choreographer/ dancer can then use the features to explore different relationships between the action and time of the drawing and the trace it leaves in relationship to the movement" (Delahunta & Zuniga Shaw, 2006, p. 55). In the TKB project referred to earlier, Carla Fernandes' research explores the same area. In parallel with video annotation software, she is developing a creation tool "to assist choreographers during compositional process" (Fernandes & Jürgens, 2013, p. 119). While the annotation tool has applications for researchers, the creation tool is used by dancers and choreographers, during or after rehearsals.

Digital technologies online allow an appropriation of archival material. Speci fic online tools can be used to analyse and compare archives and to create semantic links between documents. The Siobhan Davies Replay website ("Siobhan Davies RePlay," n.d.), contains the archives of the English choreographer, and lets users create personalized notebooks from online archival collections containing videos, photographs, sketches, etc. which are made available to the public. After selecting material, the user can annotate, classify and share it. MyStoryPlayer, the video annotation application initiative of the ECLAP European programme (European Collected Library of Artistic Performance) is a text annotation tool that can also be used to create links between audio and video material. Some choreographers and artists' research teams have also used digital technologies in documentation projects for contemporary dance. They include, among others: Emio Greco, Siobhan Davies, Wayne McGregor, Steve Paxton, Pina Bausch (through her foundation's archive programme), Myriam Gourfink, Jan Fabre, Deborah Hay, Bebe Miller, Thomas Hauert and of course William Forsythe, whose pioneering projects have become essential references. Some people, like researcher Scott deLahunta and multimedia designer Chris Ziegler, are involved with multiple projects between which they share reflections, experiences and good practices. These initiatives are driven by such factors as the considerable impact of the Improvisation Technologies CD-ROM by William Forsythe, the interest of artists and the public to the creative process, the increasing access to digital tools, including movement capture and video annotation, the increasing interest for the various methods of documentation and transmission of the performing arts, exemplified by the trend of re-staging initial works of a specific choreographer (e.g. Trisha Brown's Early Works 1966-1979remounted in 2005, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker's Early Works 1982-1987re-staged in 2010), and by the acquisition by museums of performances (intangible heritage).

These documentation projects, based on video recording annotation, have the fact that they generate choreographic material from the standpoint of the artist in common, taking into account his or her creative process. In other words, the goal is not to outline a single model to document all artistic processes, but rather to start from the unique practice of each choreographer to develop speci fic documentation. In addition, these projects do not document to leave a trace, but rather to ensure the transmission of the dance to other dancers, even to generate new work. As noted by Scott deLahunta, "These artists [Siobhan Davies, Emio Greco, Wayne McGregor and William Forsythe] and the organisations that have been built up around them have begun to think or rethink in some cases how to create, manage and disseminate their choreographic resources. The focus of this rethinking tends to oscillate between the establishment of an archive and how to fold resources back into their own artistic work" (Delahunta & Zuniga Shaw, 2006, p. 54). The temporality of archives is no longer a given when transitioning from a focus on conservation to a perspective of recycling. During the process, the actions of cataloguing, and leaving traces of earlier work, are replaced by the collection of various elements for the purposes of injecting them again in the creative process. Documents are no longer considered in view of their heritage value, and become the trigger of new artistic practices. Without going into detail about all the examples, we shall shed some light on the projects led by William Forsythe.

Video annotations by William Forsythe

William Forsythe is without a doubt a pioneer of video annotation in the field of the performing arts. His Improvisation Technologies, Synchronous objects and Motion Bank works reflect a twenty-year reflection on the subject since 1993.

In 1993, choreographer William Forsythe approached German ZKM about a digital archival project to video recording performances and rehearsals. Produced between 1994 and 1999, the Improvisation Technologies CD-ROM analyses the choreographic language of William Forsythe, shown with four dancers of the Frankfurt Ballet in approximately sixty short video sequences. Their movements are deconstructed and graphically analysed using graphic tracing and geometric figures drawn directly on the moving image (Fig. 1). Each motion generates lines, plans, rotations, extensions, extrusions, curves, circles, angles, torsions, etc. The video annotation process clarifies the links between the body and the space. Graphic representation is the first approach to using visual data for movement analysis. Improvisation Technologies still perfectly exemplifies the Forsythe approach (especially in improvisation techniques) and the new possibilities in dance teaching methods brought by digital technologies. Indeed, the CD-ROM was initially not meant for public consumption but rather for the new recruits of the Frankfurt Ballet, required to very rapidly assimilate Forsythe's method to interpret the repertoire. It was only in 1999 that Forsythe decided to make the CD-ROM available to wider audiences.

Improvisation Technologies was the starting point to building the Synchronous objects website for One Flat Thing, reproduced (William Forsythe). Synchronous objects was produced by William Forsythe, Maria Palazzi and Norah Zuniga Shaw for the Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design (ACCAD) of the University of Ohio. Initiated in 2005 and published in 2009 [START_REF] Zuniga Shaw | Synchronous Objects, Choreographic Objects, and the Translation of Dancing Ideas[END_REF][START_REF] Zuniga Shaw | Synchronous Objects[END_REF], this interdisciplinary research project sought to use data visualization to expose the writing and composition processes underlying One Flat Thing, reproduced, a choreography created by Forsythe in 2000. As noted by Norah Zuniga Shaw, "It was also clear what it was NOT. This would not be an effort to create a score from which the piece could be reconstructed (as is the priority of traditional dance documentation)." (Delahunta & Zuniga Shaw, 2006, p. 60). On its home page it is stated that Synchronous objects "examines the organizational structures found in William Forsythe's dance One Flat Thing, reproduced by translating and transforming them into new objects -ways of visualizing dance that draw on techniques from a variety of disciplines" [START_REF] Zuniga Shaw | Synchronous Objects[END_REF].

Synchronous objects is based on video recorded by Thierry De Mey (who also produced a video montage for Arte). The main subject, entitled The Dance, is directly aligned with Improvisation Technologies, despite a more complex, exhaustive and interactive approach, where graphic annotations no longer translate movement but rather choreographic language.

By introducing what could be considered as "macro" visualizations, it displays, on both the video recording and a synchronized score, the theme sequence and repetition, the flow of signals between dancers, and "alignments" (Fig. 2). The viewer chooses between three video standpoints, and four audio modes. The analysis is taken one step further: video annotations and data collected from dancers merge to transform the choreography in a coherent data system for computer analysis, where one single data point can generate multiple display modes, based on the tools available. The result is a set of 20 choreographic objects synchronized with the initial work and comprised of 2D and 3D animations, graphic annotations, interactive tools, diagrams, maps, etc., each visually translating or interpreting the choreographic action of One Flat Thing, reproduced, and meticulously documented. For Forsythe, digital technologies let us question the very nature of the choreographic act.

The diversity of objects opens multiple choreographic extensions and points of view on the initial work, which in turns generates rich and complex visual translation without the dancers, but not without the movement. They provide an alternative to verbal language and video recording, or even to notation, in an attempt to express intangible dance. Instead of representing the body's position in space, displaying data reveals dynamics, allows movement perception, and translates it into visual flows. Synchronous objects is the first realization of Motion Bank, a broader research programme conducted between 2009 and 2013, whose main innovation in the two earlier mentioned projects was the selection of the subject matter. Indeed, it no longer started from Forsythe's creation or language, but from those of guest choreographers Deborah Hay, Jonathan Burrows & Matteo Fargion, Bebe Miller and Thomas Hauert. The video recording results again in digital annotations leading to a plastic interpretation by visual artists. For Thomas Hauert, "using the knowledge of choreographic practices as a starting point for digital creation triggers new original artistic outputs, in the field of digital art and of choreography alike. It can create an interesting feedback loop." (Hennermann & deLahunta, 2013, p. 61) Forsythe's research, from Improvisation Technologies t o Synchronous objects and Motion Bank brings up a new paradigm, when "How to remember dance?" becomes "How to seize and capture the essence of choreography?". Video recording has given way to movement capture, accessible as digital data. Beyond the documentation of important works by the choreographer, another memory of dance implicitly emerges: a memory of the body in movement, a memory that can be reactivated in subsequent works, or translated to other supports and without being limited to video recording exclusively.

Rekall: from video annotation to data visualization

Rekall is an open source environment for documenting and analysing staging processes and simplifying the re-staging of performances. Started in 2007 within the DOCAM programme of the Daniel Langlois Foundation, the project is based on Jon Ippolito and Richard Rinehart's approach to variable media, on digital humanities experiments on Big Data (particularly the works of Lev Manovich), as well as on various experiments with video recording annotation, outlined in this paper. The starting point of Rekall is the documentation of digital performances, a specific performing art form including digital technologies in the creative process or the finished works [START_REF] Dixon | Digital performance: a history of new media in theater, dance, performance art, and installation[END_REF], and closely adaptable to the specific method of each artist or company. Due to the quick obsolescence of technologies, digital performances are not only as ephemeral as any performing work, but also generate increasingly fleeting components and traces. Thus, it becomes increasingly challenging to document productions and the preliminary creative process, but also to re-stage, even to integrate them to a repertoire. The Rekall software documents digital performances while taking into account the creative process, the public reception and various formats of the production of a performance. It is destined for artists, technicians, researchers and the public. Rekall reflects the technologies used for the performance, and provides a description to eventually offer alternatives using different components. Indeed, I consider it critical to keep the most accurate trace as possible of the technological components, as they are also vectors of aesthetic and historical considerations, and provide a means to describe the very effects of such components, in line with reflections on variable media (Depocas, Ippolito, & Jones, 2003).

As artists are the initial conservators of their work, I started from materials generated by artists and their teams. Their hard drives contain hundreds of documents and data, which comprise today's main traces of performances (video recording, photographs, texts, internet press files, etc.) and the creative process (email correspondence, digital notebooks, digital photographs and video of rehearsals, miscellaneous digital documents showing preliminary research, intricate computer programs developed for the performance, etc.). Such material is not exclusively digital, but rather complementary documents in other supporting media: models, hardware components, stage elements (costumes, sets, etc.), and handwritten notebooks, among others, which can also be digitized. Among these documents, video recording is in a class of its own. Generally made and produced by the company (for marketing purposes) it is considered as one of the most important traces of the performance. Such material, when used for digital performances brings multiple challenges, including the illegibility of real-time interactivity. Indeed, how to distinguish, when viewing a video recording, real time interactivity (e.g. a gesture triggering a sound or modifying an image), from the synchronization of a dancer with the media used in differential time? Video recording remains difficult to approach, notably in regards to the implementation of technological components. It must imperatively be annotated: enhanced by commentary. Its advantage over programs lixe Max/MSP patches, which was momentarily considered as a central document [START_REF] Bardiot | Noting/Annotating. Documenting the technology-based performing arts[END_REF] -is to generate temporal documents (whether or not temporality is that of the production), a timeline on which all materials can be linked and presented with the course of a progress in time: performance sketches, audio commentary, technical element descriptions, etc. This also enables the definition and use of multiple temporal strata: that of the creative process (e.g.: showing when research was conducted on a specific aspect of the performance), of the performance itself (or of other versions for a work in progress), and reception (for instance by adding audio commentary of the company on its own work, or those of audiences, or press files).

Therefore, the initial phase of Rekall was developed as a video annotation software with three additional functions: the creation of links between multiples documents to comment and provide information on or between documents (the generation of relative databases); the selection of video recording as the backbone on which to structure all other documents; and the addition of text or audio commentary.

Then, considering that nearly all performance forms rely on digital technologies, whether during the creative process (email exchanges, word processing, remote interviews through telepresence devices (VOIP) digital image and video inspirations, new approaches, image sharing platforms, sketches made on a tablet, etc.) or during performances (video, sound and light management), I consider it is possible to extend the application of Rekall to all performing arts, even to performance and installation arts.

In 2012, after a grant contributed to financing the software, Guillaume Marais (human engineering and interface design), Guillaume Jacquemin (computer development) and Thierry Coduys (consultant, designer of electronic devices for live performances and collaborator of stage directors, composers and choreographers) joined the project. Their contribution was critical for what followed for Rekall. We have collaborated with two artistic teams in theatre (Jean-François Peyret) and dance (Mylène Benoit), residents respectively at the Le Fresnoy and the Phenix scène nationale Valenciennes (France). Rekall currently exists as a beta version, and the V1 is expected in November 2014. Rekall's default display mode gathers all the documents around a video of a performance (Fig. 3)2 . One moment links to a technical sheet, another to the video of a rehearsal, another to the notes of the stage director. It can also add background text or audio commentary, superimposed as a background voice. Many video recordings may be simultaneously added and viewed, which greatly facilitates the comparison of multiple versions of a performance (Fig. 4) or views over the same performance (e.g. front view vs. overhead view). Initially designed as video annotation software, Rekall quickly became visualization software based on the use of metadata. Indeed, Rekall structures all documents by recovering all their metadata. Therefore, temporal (x axis representing the performance, synchronized with its video recording) and chronological (y axis represents the creative process, from the first rehearsals to the last performances) displays are merely two among many display modes. Through the analysis of these documents, the links made between them, and the careful selection of context (multidimensional, temporal or non temporal), Rekall opens an extremely significant new realm of analytical possibilities. The video annotation function is only one of many metadata display modes, and another mean of document comparison on three axis (horizontal, vertical and colour). Preset display modes are offered to the user, and options are provided to create new ones. For instance, the people activity punchcard mode records when and by whom documents were created or modified, which contributes to the understanding of when the light technician, set designer, actors, etc., become involved in the creative process. This facilitates the comparison of different options, whether in the different works of one single artist, or the work of different artists. For the time being, Rekall has no function to graphically annotate video recordings, as is currently done by Improvisation technologies and Synchronous objects. Nevertheless, we do not exclude the addition of this function in future developments.

The transition from video annotation to metadata display entails a change in the nature of documents, a new language, or herméneutique de la documentation as quoted by Anne Benichou (Benichou, 2014). Not only is Rekall a tool to construct a performing arts heritage archive, but its export functions can be used to send material to Web sites, applications or other editorial platforms to allow the creation of "enhanced documentaries", of "enriched captures", and other archival documents to broadcast the studied works to larger audiences. The goal is not to freeze documents but rather to trigger a dynamic documentation that can be enriched, enhanced, made precise, based on the contribution of artists, their teams and researchers, but also lead to a new interpretation based on defined display modes. The polysemic interpretation of documents opens the way to a re-interpretation of works, in the perspective of their adaptations, re-staging or re-enactment.

FiguresFig. 1

 1 Figures

  Fig. 1 Improvisation Technologies: A Tool for the Analytical Eye, CD-Rom, 1999, screenshot.

Fig. 2

 2 Fig. 2 Synchronous objects for One Flat Thing, reproduced by William Forsythe, site internet, 2009, « The Dance », screenshot.

Fig. 3

 3 Fig. 3 Rekall -Chronological study of document creation and modifications of a work. Vertical: calendar month; colour: type of document ; text: author ; Horizontal: timeline.

Fig. 4

 4 Fig. 4 Rekall -Simultaneous display of three versions of a single project.

Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker had been in touch with William Forsythe, who was involved in Motion Bank at the time, in the early stages of her project. He spoke to her about his own projects involving digital technologies. Conference given by Anne Teresa de Keersmaecker at the TanzKongress, in Düsseldorf on June 8 th

All Rekall screen captures have been taken from the case study Re:Walden, staged by Jean-François Peyret, with a creative process between 2009 and 2014.

Funding

This work was supported by Le Phénix Scène Nationale Valenciennes; Pôle Image Nord-Pas de Calais; Direction Générale de la Création Artistique -Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication; Le Fresnoy, Studio National des Arts Contemporains; MA Scène Nationale -Pays de Montbéliard; and Centre National des Arts du Cirque.

Author's Biography:

Clarisse Bardiot


Clarisse Bardiot

Claire Grace

Bela Julesz

Ken Harsell

Peter Hirsch

Manfred Schroeder

Larry Heilos

Harold Hodges

Max Matthews

Yvonne Rainer

Lucinda Childs

Steve Paxton

Evenings, cf Norma Loewen

William Fetterman

The Diagrams of 9 evenings

The cover of the program 1 distributed to audience members at 9 Evenings shows a tangle of lines, a complex interweaving comprised of barely recognizable electronic symbols and scenographic notes.

Like a palimpsest, the image consists of superimposed prints of each of the technical diagrams made for the event's ten performances. 2 These drawings reappear within the program, where each performance is accorded a full-page description, half of which is devoted to an exquisite reproduction of the corresponding diagram. Also included are the title of the work, the names of the artist and principal engineer, credits, a brief text by the artist, and a photograph or sketch. The very design of the program suggests the crucial significance of the diagrams. Yet, it is in fact quite unusual to present documents of this kind in a theater program: spectators are more accustomed to seeing photographs, or even sketches relating to costuming or stage design. Produced by Bell Labs engineer Herb Schneider between the end of September and the beginning of October 1966, the diagrams 3 elucidate the important role of technology in the performances of 9 Evenings, even while they include no legend or explanatory texts that would explicate the exact functioning of the technological devices suggested. 4 Above all, the diagrams offer strong visual confirmation of the festival's principal subject, an unusual encounter between artists and engineers. Completed barely a month before the date of the first performance, the diagrams document a long process of collaboration and exchange, begun in January 1966, between ten artists and thirty-odd engineers led by Billy Klüver.

speaker giving a different sound," "airwall," [START_REF]Official minutes from the meeting on February 13, 1966[END_REF] "changing colors," "snowfall that doesn't fall," 10 "the possibility of making use of Telstar, Early Bird or some transatlantic TV communication," [START_REF] Klüver | Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology[END_REF] etc.

Weighing the feasibility of these ideas, engineers made counter-proposals, offering suggestions about preexisting technical equipment and directions fro new research. For example, Jim McGee proposed that "impulses from flexing of muscles can be used to trigger switches (in connection with proposed wireless system for instance)." 12 As the projects became more clearly defined, some of the engineers began working more closely with specific artists, forming duos like Tudor/Waldhauer, Rainer/Biorn, Cage/Coker, etc. Some dedicated themselves to perfecting the project's overall command system, while others acted as consultants for specific aspects of works, such as the amplification system in Alex Hay's performance and the design of Lucinda Childs' sonar.

The various texts and testimonials that document 9 Evenings demonstrate the extent to which dialogue between artists and engineers was not simply a matter of course. Artists frequently had the impression that the engineers had assumed too much control over the artwork and that their preoccupation with technical matters threatened to constrain the aesthetic impact of the performances. For their part, engineers found that the artists did not have a realistic understanding of the technical resolved when, in September, they regrouped for three successive work weekends at a gymnasium of the Berkeley Heights School in New Jersey. These weekend sessions allowed participants to gain a better understanding of the concerns and objectives of their collaborators as they worked together to test various technical models and finalize initial proposals. The real challenge was not so much in developing new working practices, but in finding a common language that would allow the artists and engineers to communicate effectively. Ultimately the diagrams allowed them to establish that common ground, as has been explained by Herb Schneider, who created them: What really appalled me was that on September 15th no one really knew what we were going to do on October 13th except in a very general way. Then we talked for six hours with each of the artists and then made up the drawings/diagrams of the different combinations of equipment that the different artists were going to require. David Tudor was asking for functions I couldn't visualize. Then I made the drawing. We talked back and forth making corrections till we finally beat it into shape. I couldn't understand what he wanted until I could visualize it and he couldn't communicate it to me in those terms because he's not used to visualizing functions. 13 The diagrams not only helped delineate each artist's individual project, enabling communication between artists and engineers, but they allowed them to better coordinate the many technical aspects of the performances. With the exception of Yvonne Rainer's Carriage Discreteness, the diagrams made it possible for participants to step back from dramaturgical details and gain a certain critical distance. As the mid-point between two worlds of knowledge, the diagrams served as a tool not only for articulating and distinguishing between the visions of individual participants, but also for developing an overarching framework. This explains why the diagrams are not technically precise: drawings of electronic components include no or very little detail. In fact, the diagrams function like an assemblage of interconnected "black boxes," 14 which, when matched with other archival documents, allow us to identify their contents, more or less precisely. For instance, in the diagram for Tudor's Bandoneon ! (a combine), the Proportional Control System (an interface that allows for the remote control of visual and auditory elements) is precisely described in a document at the Daniel Langlois Foundation; 15 Robert Kieronski's Vochrome is still intact; and the system used by Lowell Cross to convert sound into image is very clearly described in his writings. 16 On the other hand, we know almost nothing about the mixers, not to mention the objects developed by Tudor, which are initialed "D," the first letter of his first name. In other words, it is impossible to precisely describe the operating principle of most of the electronic artifacts used in 9 Evenings, and it is therefore impossible to identify the exact technical system specific to each performance. This is especially true because, often enough, the diagrams do not detail each and every aspect of the corresponding performance. For example, the walkie-talkie connection between Yvonne Rainer and her dancers is not mentioned in the diagram for Carriage Discreteness. 17 13 Simone Whitman "Theater and Engineering: An Experiment: Notes by a participant": 29. 14 A "Black Box" is a custom made "device or theoretical construct, esp. an electric circuit, with known or specified performance characteristics but unknown or unspecified constituents or means of operation Nonetheless, an analysis of the diagrams, combined with other visual documents (notably, the film footage shot by Alfons Schilling 18 ) testimonials, and archival documents, 19 allows us understand the architecture (which is to say, the entrances, exits, and the black box itself), the principal components, their distribution in space (between the central control panel, the stage, and the balconies) and the overall design of each performance. Furthermore, the relationship between the overall architecture and the placement of objects in the performance space allows us to determine whether the technical devices were visible on stage, or, on the other hand, were hidden from spectator's field of vision. Electing to show the technical apparatus, as do Cage, Tudor, and Alex

Hay, and choosing to conceal it from view, as do Rauschenberg and Öyvind Fahlström, implies a markedly different aesthetic significance. The first approach reveals and deconstructs the mechanism, and reaffirms the link between objects and their effects, thus giving the spectator a certain critical perspective on the action taking place on stage. In the second approach, technology becomes something magical and mysterious, the effects of which the spectator experiences in an almost visceral sense. Rauschenberg's piece exemplifies this latter approach: all the effort is focused on the effects-that is, the impact of the balls on the rackets causes the projectors to turn off -and not on the complex means by which these effects are achieved. This is why the audience did not perceive a significant difference between the two performances of Rauschenberg's piece, the first on October 14 and the second on October 23, even though two radically different technical methods were employed. In the first, because the technical device had not yet been perfected, lighting changes were done manually (an engineer unplugged the projectors when given a signal by the stage manager). In the second performance, however, the same effect was accomplished automatically by the complex electronic system shown in the diagram. Comparing the two methods employed here points to the question of theatrical illusion, which resurfaces throughout 9 Evenings.

Because the artists were individually involved in the production of the diagrams -drawings that are at once sketch and blueprint -one can discern the traces of the artists' personal understanding of the technology employed in their performances. For John Cage and Alex Hay, technology permitted the amplification of phenomenon that cannot be heard under normal circumstances. Whether capturing the sounds of brainwaves or the sound waves of the flexing of muscles (Hay) or "all the sounds which are in the air at the moment of performance" 20 (Cage), technology served to augment the spectator's overall perceptual experience. This was also the case in Rauschenberg's performance, in which the use of cameras and infrared lights made it possible to see the crowd of performers on the unlit, entirely darkened stage. In Tudor's case, the technical device employed not only served as a tool but also produced a musical arrangement during the performance. In that instance, technology defined the boundaries of the performance, and yet also provided its point of departure. The shift between various media was another recurring theme: in Rauschenberg's piece, rackets triggered changes in lighting; in Childs' performance, movement became sound while sound became image; in Tudor's, sound triggered variations in light and image. In the choreography of Deborah Hay, a remote control system allowed shifts in light and sound to trigger movement. Lucinda Childs, John Cage, and David Tudor focused on the possibility of bestowing objects with a spontaneous, random quality. Yvonne Rainer was more concerned with the notion of preprogramming a fixed sequence of events, which, as the diagram makes evident, were set in motion by the black box used in her piece.

In the example of Paxton, whose diagram shows the spectator's path through the performance space, technology allowed for the tentative integration of the spectator in the performance itself:

only by physically moving through the space could spectators experience Paxton's various sensory immersion situations (bodily, visual, and auditory). For Whitman, technology allowed him to interweave multiple layers of sound and video footage. Finally, Fahlström's use of technology was clearly the most traditional: hidden from the audience's view, all the technical equipment is grouped together at the central control panel.

In light of this analysis, it becomes apparent that a single device does not always produce the same effects and need not always be used in the same manner. This remains without a doubt the greatest discovery of 9 Evenings, and certainly its most important message for artistic initiatives that would follow.

As the diagrams make clear, this achievement is due to the development of a highly flexible system of basic electronic elements, which were tailored to the specific needs of each artist. Thus, what in fact was offered to the artists was a kind of combinatorics 21 of primary components, which were then augmented with additional materials according to the demands of individual projects. In many cases, the added technical elements were the most visible and most significant aspects of the performance, like the rackets in Open Score, for example, or the carts in Solo, the Ground Effect Machine and the Sonar in Vehicle, or the foam sculptures in Kisses Sweeter Than Wine. However. as remarkable and technologically challenging as these mechanical feats proved to be, they in fact were not more than accessories or props to the larger, underlying framework of the performances:

the TEEM (Theater Electronic Environmental Module), also called the THEME (Theater Environmental Modular Electronic), about whose innovative character Klüver rightly boasted.

The TEEM was composed of between 250 to 300 elements according to stipulations made in advance and throughout the creative process: decoders, encoders, power amplifiers, power relays, tone control units, Speaker Distribution Matrix, Proportional Control System, FM receivers, FM transmitters, photocells, speakers, program drums, preamplifiers, most of which were made available by Klüver's Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T). In 9 Evenings, most of the electronic equipment was placed at the central control panel, which was thought of as a "black box" by the engineers. This system allowed for the remote control of the elements on the stage (lights, loud speakers, cameras, microphones, projectors, motors, and so on), which were linked to the control panel either by cables, or by a wireless system. Wireless technology was developed very early on: a document entitled "Description of Wireless System," 22 made available March 1, 1966, described a novel system involving transmitters and FM receptors. It had thus become possible to use microphones, photocells, push button units, tape recorders, and radios to operate loud speakers and to trigger chains of command that could set in motion a whole range of different devices. This wireless system effectively prefigured the foundational principles of TEEM, even if it was not yet labeled as such. In 9 Evenings, then, it was less a matter of stage design than of creating an overarching electronic environment, a network that would connect the technical devices involved in the performances, an interface between the technical apparatus and the performers and engineers.

By allowing participants to visualize a combination of TEEM elements unique to each performance, the diagrams unearthed yet another complication, which ultimately led the engineers to refigure the entire event: "Just looking at the 10 diagrams made it clear that shifts between artists once each night might take hours." 23 To simplify the problem, Herb Schneider suggested using equipment donated by AMP Inc. of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to build a command center that would establish a connection between all of the electrical instruments. program card or patch board was inserted into a decoding device that was in turn connected to all the TEEM elements. This invention was in the end criticized by participants because errors in the cable connections ultimately jeopardized a number of the performances, especially during the first several days of the festival. These errors were essentially due to the fact that there had not been enough time to verify and test all the equipment.

The diagrams of the performances of 9 Evenings were a turning point in the development of the festival. They were first and foremost the tool that allowed artists and engineers to communicate with one another. The diagrams were, moreover, the source of a radical technological innovation. In fact, even if computer technology is not an appropriate term here, these diagrams, and the use of AMP equipment that they required, demonstrate that the engineers and artists involved in 9

Evenings utilized some of the fundamental principles and logic of computer science: programming, data storing, shifts between one media form and another, random logic, combinatorics, etc. In this sense, the event anticipated the impact of computer technology on performance art 24 . The interdisciplinary collaboration between artists and engineers, the wireless remote control system, and the generation of sound by choreographed movement continue to be developed in current performance art, especially that which incorporates digital technology. 9 Evenings thus represents one of the most important precursors to this movement.

  ." The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, s.v. "black box." 15 Proportional Control System For the Festival of Art and Engineering, 1966. Includes a memorandum, schematics, and handwritten notes by Fred Waldhauer describing the operating modes of the Proportional Control System and other electronic components used during 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering. 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering fonds. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology. 9 EVE 00032686. 16 Lowell Cross, "Musica Instrumentalis, Video II (B), Video II (C), Video II (L)". In SOURCE, Music of The Avant

Garde no. 9. (1971): 3-10; Lowell Cross, "Remembering David Tudor: A 75th Anniversary Memoir." In Frankfurter Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft. TM1. (2001): 1-35; Lowell Cross Memories of Two Works Performed at "9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering," 25th Street Armory, New York, NY, 1966. Unpublished text, personal archives of Lowell

Cross. 1966 (revised in 2005)

. Some of these texts are available on the internet: http://www.LowellCross.com. 17 During the second performance (October 21), Yvonne Rainer was sick and Robert Morris took her place, using the walkie-talkie to give directions to the dancers.

  18 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering, factual footage, produced by Billy Klüver; camera operators: Alfons Schilling and engineers of Bell Laboratory. Shot between the 13 and 23 of October, 1966. 24 film reels (ca 9 hr.): original, b & w;16 and 35 mm + negatives. 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering fonds. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology. 9 EVE 00031602. The factual footage was edited by Alfons Schilling in his unreleased film entitled: 9 Evenings of Theatre and Engineering. 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering fonds. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology. 9 EVE VID00032223. And in Barbro Schultz Lundestam's series of documentaries on each of the ten performances (production started in 1996, to be released). 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering fonds. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology. 9 EVE 00031602. 19 The following unpublished documents are particularly useful: Herb Schneider, "A Glimpse or More at Some

Technical Aspects Not Seen by the Third Partner of Nine Evenings -The Public." "A View from Central." Robby Robinson, "What Really Happened at the Armory." Experiments in Art and Technology. Records, 1966-1993, Getty Research Institute, Research Library, Accession no. 940003; Interview with Per Biorn, produced by the Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology; interviewers: Vincent Bonin, Eric Legendre, Julie Martin. 4 videocassettes (3 hr., 45 min.): master, col., sound, Mini-DV. Interview conducted August 25, 2004 in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Interview recorded simultaneously on audiotape (3 Minidiscs). 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering fonds. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology. 9 EVE 00032223.

  The central control panel made it possible to program commands required for each performance, and to store that information indefinitely: a 22 Description of Wireless System. March 1, 1996. Text and technical drawings. Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology. EAT C1-7/5; 7. 23 Herb Schneider, "A Glimpse or More at Some Technical Aspects Not Seen by the Third Partner of Nine Evenings -

The Public." Experiments in Art and Technology. Records, 1966-1993, Getty Research Institute, Research Library, Accession no. 940003.

  This research was conducted in 2005 as part of the researcher in residence program of The DanielLanglois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology. I would like to thank all of the members of the Foundation, particularly archivists Eric Legendre and Vincent Bonin, who were instrumental to this research. I would also like to thank Ludovic Carpentier, who created the website and animated the diagrams. I am also grateful to Jean Gagnon, Jacques Perron, Sylvie Lacerte, Julie Martin, Lowell Cross, Robert Kieronski, Yvonne Rainer, Deborah Hay, Robert Whitman, and Alexi Hervé.

Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (Lucinda Childs, "Vehicle"), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm black-and-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds. Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (Berkeley School), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm black-and-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds. Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (David Tudor, "Bandoneon! (a combine)"), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm blackand-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds. Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (Central Control Area), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm black-and-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds. Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (Amp Equipment), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm black-and-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds. Frame capture, 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering (Central Control Area), 1966, camera: Alfons Schilling and Bell Labs Engineers, produced by Billy Klüver, 16 mm black-and-white film, The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology, 9 Evening Theatre and Engineering fonds.

Theatre and Engineering. Edited by Pontus Hultén and Frank Königsberg.

findings are presented on the foundation website: http://www.fondationlanglois.org/flash/e/index.php?NumPage=571