All Comments by Author

My opinion on philosophy is ambivalent – although I thoroughly enjoy provocative questions, I am unsatisfied with the indefinite conclusion. Ryoji Ikeda’s Superposition explores the idea of nature and physics in a universal scope through the unique combination of technology and live performance, but this concept left me bewildered and disappointed with its anticlimactic, inconclusive answer that matches its philosophical roots.

My class had the pleasure of having the two performers Stephane Garin and Amelie Grould to discuss their experiences, and I learned that they were musicians, so going into the show I was anticipating a message to be conveyed through sound. However, immediately after the performance started, I knew I would not enjoy it – the loud buzzing in the background combined with the beeping and bright lights was a painful experience, and any nuance the music was supposed to carry was lost to me.

I thought the show did an excellent job utilizing the two larger screens to juxtapose ideas; the arguments between science and religion were well done. I also I enjoyed its spontaneity.

Although math was integrated into the show, it was anything but formulaic. The screens were erratic, which made it difficult to predict the next direction this show would take. This kept my attention as I tried desperately to process what was being displayed on the multiple screens. However, this was also something that I found distracting and frustrating. The screens flashed by at a rapid pace, so I had trouble perceiving the stimulus of the show, much less interpreting it.

Although I appreciate this venture into contemplative questioning in art form, it was not something I enjoyed. I found the performance disorienting and it wasn’t as mentally stimulating as I had hoped it would be.

All comments by Angela

People Are Talking: UMS presents Ryoji Ikeda’s superposition at Power Center:

I was one of those people that plugged their ears during parts of the performance. I found the harsh sounds unnecessary and detracted from the overall impact of the piece. I would have preferred to stick with what is comfortable to me, like you mentioned earlier about your college life.

In response to:
"
Ryoji Ikeda’s “Superposition” pushed the boundaries of performance in a way that I have never seen done before. It was far more than just a visual experience, for it was almost tangible. As a college student, I tend to stick with what is comfortable for me, which is seeing mainstream pop or rock artists perform live or watching theater productions put on by my school. While those shows are entertaining in their own right, few have been as thought provoking for me as “Superposition”. It was a show different than all others, and it actually made me very excited to see what is to come in the future of performance. The way that Ryoji Ikeda mixed the elements of sound and sight created a futuristic atmosphere. He is definitely ahead of his time.

While Ryoji Ikeda’s play on sight and sound pushed boundaries and was surely inventive, what was the cost? There was no spectrum of sound or sight in this piece. It was either utterly silent or sounds pierced and vibrated through one’s ears. The same can be said for the images flashing before the audience. It was either pitch black or harsh/bright color combinations were presented before us. Personally, I found it riveting and breathtaking, but I noticed that others did not feel the same way. People around me seemed to be very uncomfortable for the most part. I noticed that many people had brief moments of discomfort where they had to look away or plug their ears, but some even felt like it was necessary to leave. The way that the performance heightened the audience’s senses may have been overwhelming to many, but I actually think that the layer of discomfort added to the effect of the piece. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Maya
"
by Maya

My opinion on philosophy is ambivalent – although I thoroughly enjoy provocative questions, I am unsatisfied with the indefinite conclusion. Ryoji Ikeda’s Superposition explores the idea of nature and physics in a universal scope through the unique combination of technology and live performance, but this concept left me bewildered and disappointed with its anticlimactic, inconclusive answer that matches its philosophical roots.

My class had the pleasure of having the two performers Stephane Garin and Amelie Grould to discuss their experiences, and I learned that they were musicians, so going into the show I was anticipating a message to be conveyed through sound. However, immediately after the performance started, I knew I would not enjoy it – the loud buzzing in the background combined with the beeping and bright lights was a painful experience, and any nuance the music was supposed to carry was lost to me.

I thought the show did an excellent job utilizing the two larger screens to juxtapose ideas; the arguments between science and religion were well done. I also I enjoyed its spontaneity.

Although math was integrated into the show, it was anything but formulaic. The screens were erratic, which made it difficult to predict the next direction this show would take. This kept my attention as I tried desperately to process what was being displayed on the multiple screens. However, this was also something that I found distracting and frustrating. The screens flashed by at a rapid pace, so I had trouble perceiving the stimulus of the show, much less interpreting it.

Although I appreciate this venture into contemplative questioning in art form, it was not something I enjoyed. I found the performance disorienting and it wasn’t as mentally stimulating as I had hoped it would be.