In addition to the YouTube channel, documentation of the 10 Performances event is now online in full here. In Danae Theodoridou’s introduction to the web archive, she describes an email exchange that eventually developed into the 10 Performances research project:

“Me: I am working on my first piece here in London.
Them: Send us the text.

This was the closest they could get. The performance’s text was raised to their only possible, immediate connection with the work. I was sending emails, one after the other, with the same attachment: ‘reply to all.doc.’.  I did not realize at that time, though, that these mails created another kind of audience for my work and that this series of attachments was becoming a performance itself. […] As they kept talking about ideas, images and affective qualities of their encounter with the work, I could not help but thinking where was the stage in their experience? What was that that they had encountered? What was the work? A text? A text of a performance? A performance?

Or to put it in another way: Where was the performance in that text?”

I’ve heard Danae describe this exchange before, but I’ve just noticed how closely it parallels a question I’m now handling in my treatment of texts as machines, which I described the other day:

Let’s imagine a text is a machine that makes some thing.

The machine makes the thing, and the thing is different from the machine. The machine has to take certain physical forms in order to make the thing it makes, but these physical properties are not the point of the machine: its product is the point.

Where is the work in the text?