More Thinking, Lautes Licht

I'm beginning to see Licht as an analytic tool--something I did not expect. Particularly when contrasting elements are inputted into the machine: it poses the question, "who will win?" What will the audience choose to watch, Jefferson Davis, or Abraham Lincoln? Happy story, or sad story?

I believe it is possible to use the same rotation scheme and interface to create themes (or work within established themes or stories.)

The piece works most easily and clearly with musicians and dancers. This may be largely on account of training and habits of watching a conductor for cues and tempo. Less ethically dubious, too, when all understand clearly how they are contributing to the whole.

May work with verbatim theatre, with actors wearing visible earphones and listening to a recording of someone describing an important moment in his or her life. The actor may hone in on the rhythms of the recorded speaker's voice, and add or remove emphasis from the text according to their lighting.

It may also work with people reading documents detailing opposite sides of a lawsuit, or simply with two good bits of recent writing with contrasting themes or aims.

The piece needs to accentuate the fact that it is about the audience too.
--Light audience too, light operator to ensure they are sure they know they're inside the piece.
--slowly fade up on the operator after they've been tinkering for a while, or when they're being jerks (punishment?)

The Operator must take responsibility for his or her actions, for while the safety of anonymity encourages people to participate, it is arguable that the safety of anonymity also encourages cruelty. It has also been suggested by audience members that "abuse" of the performers by switch-happy audience members was encouraged by the specific direction to interact with the light board, and that they felt rather like they were part of a psychological study. Some even wondered if they were expected to cause harm to the performers, or if the game was for an observer to see how far they would push the performers before backing off. (Milgram experiment, The Perils of Obedience). As it was, all abusive operators, save one, felt satisfied with their abuse when one performer flubbed a line, soured a note, or missed a step--the performers were never pushed far enough by abuse to quit the game, though they knew they were empowered and expected to, and the audience never felt cruel or free enough to continue after confusion set in. I believe though, that if operators are visible they are more likely to engage with the piece self-consciously and gently, particularly if they believe that the performers can see them, as then they may be aware that there may be repercussions--from the rest of the audience, the performers themselves, and from any area security personnel.