Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T12:39:14.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards a Relational Understanding of the Performance Ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2011

Tom Davis*
Poole House, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, BH12 5BB


This article seeks to form a deeper understanding of the performance ecosystem by drawing parallels with Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics and Guattari's conception of subjectivity as outlined in Chaosmosis. Through an examination of participation within performance, and a recognition of the mutability of the roles of performer, listener, instrument and environment in the creation of the music event, this article examines the place of subjectivity, the capacity for self-creation, in the formation of a group aesthetic. Such a concept places the creation of meaning not within the individual participant but rather within the relationship between participants in a situation, a relationship that recognises the interaction between individuals, societies and institutions in its production. Such a discussion helps further our understanding of the performance ecosystem as a conceptual tool.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Barthes, R. 1977. Image Music Text. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, C. 2004. Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. October 110: 5179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, C. 2006. Participation. London: Whitechapel.Google Scholar
Bourriaud, N. 1998. Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: Les presses du réel.Google Scholar
Bourriaud, N. 2001. Public Relations: Bennett Simpson Talks With Nicolas Bourriaud, Artforum (April 2001). Available at (accessed 20 April 2011).Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2003. Improvising Machines: Ethnographically Informed Design for Improvised Electro-acoustic Music. Available at (accessed 27 October 2006).Google Scholar
Fried, M. 1967. Art and Objecthood. In C. Harrison and P. Wood (eds), Art in Theory, 1900–1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.Google Scholar
Guattari, F. 1995. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm, trans. P. Bains and J. Pefanis. Sydney: Power Publications.Google Scholar
Guattari, F. 1996. Subjectivities: For Better and for Worse. In G. Genosko (ed.), The Guattari Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 193203.Google Scholar
Impett, J. 2001. Interaction, Simulation and Invention: A Model for Interactive Music. In E. Bilotta, E.R. Miranda, P. Pantano and P.M. Todd (eds), Proceedings of ALMMA 2001 Workshop on Artificial Models for Musical Applications. Cosenza: Editoriale Bios, 108119.Google Scholar
Maturana, H., Varela, F. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A., Etxeverria, A. 2005. Agency in Natural and Artificial Systems. Artificial Life 11(1–2): 161176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Sullivan, S. 2006. Academy: The Production of Subjectivity. In Irit Rogoff et al. (eds), Academy. Frankfurt: Revolver.Google Scholar
Ranciere, J. 2007. The Emancipated Spectator. Art Forum (March): 270281.Google Scholar
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Ungvary, T., Kieslinger, M. 1996. Towards a Musician's Cockpit. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Waters, Simon. 2007. Performance Ecosystems: Ecological Approaches to Musical Interaction’. Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network 2007. Scholar