Hello All,
I'm so excited--this is my first task since the re-set! As some of you know, I'm finishing my MA in Folklore this semester, and my thesis is about SF0. So the notes I'm sharing with you here are some of the notes for my thesis. I also have an ulterior purpose in posting them...well, two actually. Fist of all, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this set of notes. Secondly, I'm conducting interviews with SF0 players, and if you'd be willing to set up an interview time with me, or do an email interview, let me know and I'll be eternally grateful! Ok, here are the notes:

Notes on Recipient design and actual audience

There may be a startling difference between the imagined audience that the performer plans for and the actual audience that encounters the performer and her work. Also, there may be a difference still in the way the performer perceives the audience’s role in a task and the way the audience members imagine themselves. We must remember that each audience member is an individual, who at least deserves the title “participant,” and not just some blank face in a mass called “audience.” (Of course, not all SF0 players recognize the individual thinking role, or potential for response, of non-players. Though of course many do. Some of the terms the SF0 players have given those who view their tasks are: non-players, participants, and bystanders.) Thus, each participant is at the center of his or her perceptive experience. It is from this center that the participant, be she very active or just a passerby to the SF0 task performance, views the performance from a self-centered perspective, and will receive and try to make meaning of the performance accordingly. Thus we cannot simply rely upon the performer’s conclusions about audience-participants as shared in online reports and personal interviews. One task that might provide us with some interesting data is the “Flattery Brigade” task (See interviews with Jason 7au and piratey monkey). The instructions for this task are as follows: “Gather a small group of people in a public place. Sit and watch the people go by for an hour or so. Say something complimentary to each and every one of them.” (http://sf0.org/tasks/Flattery-Brigade/). For this task, one group of players provides video documentation. Take a look at the way the players present the final form of the task in their report, how they interact with people walking by, how they seem to design compliments to suit various individuals (or not) and how the passers-by respond. This is also an example of a task that would be impossible to perform without the presence of non-players, and so the passers-by are turned into vital participants. And the reception and response of those non-players is key to the final form of the task as appears online. Also, we need to look at the response of the other players who vote for and comment upon this task. Do they like it? Is there any sign to show whether they find the performance appropriate to the task description? How does the reaction of the immediate audience in the video affect the response of the virtual, imagined, audience on the website? Do the performers seem to favor the response of one audience group over the other? How do the players turn the immediate participants into imagined participants in order to make themselves perform? They must need to imagine the response of the individuals walking by, in order to find the right (or wrong, if they wish to provoke a negative reaction) response. Also, it may be easier to deal with the passers-by on an imaginary rather than an immediate level. Often, it seems that the audience is first imagined, and then becomes real through response. Many of the people who were “flattered,” simple ignored the players. After all, it is quite out of the ordinary for a group of adults to just sit in a public place and hand out compliments to everyone who passes by. And, of course, how seriously can the audience take them if they are just throwing out praise right and left, indiscriminately. But sometimes there were more positive or involved audience reactions, perhaps based upon the nature of the compliment. For instance, a couple responded favorably when the players complimented them on their “beautiful babies.” Another couple walked by with pillows they had just purchased. The flattery brigade told them that those were awesome pillows and one member of the party asked that the now-participants whack him with the pillows, which they did. The brigade also realized the difficulty of garnering a positive response to their task. They wrote in their report: “It's very easy to sound patronizing when complimenting a stranger for absolutely no reason at all” (http://sf0.org/RockHardPhantom/Flattery-Brigade/). The online audience gave the players seven votes, and their comments indicate that they enjoyed the saucier “compliments” (or criticisms) such as, "I have NOT the bravery, sir. I have not the bravery" (a comment made to a man with long dreadlocks), and, "Sir, that jacket is inappropriate for this hot weather." At one point, a group compliment was paid. A flock of tourists from Huston walked by. The brigade spoke to them and concluded with the compliment, “Very awesome group.” A couple of people from this group responded verbally, or with looks, but most seemed eager to pass the flatterers by.