JW: In the proposal for the 911 grant, you describe some rather provocative / lofty philosophical issues about the relationship between technology and human interactions. Did these occur to you at the beginning, or did these thoughts evolve over time as you worked on the project?

JJ: Well, originally, my idea was that it would be funny to hook up a human being to a real vending machine, instead of using the hat. The dollar bill acceptor took the place of the hat. Then Bret added the interactive music, and then, although the ideas about human / machine tension were present in the background the whole time, they came forward in the grant proposal. On a certain level, they are overstated. At the most basic level, the contrast between electronic and human is really designed more for humor than for any sort of philosophical message. I do think the finished piece allows for exploration of those issues if you want to get into them, but it is not didactic. It is not saying human beings are starting to be controlled by computers or that computers are superior to human beings ...unless the viewer wants it to! Really, the issues listed in the grant are contrasts that function as design tools. These art tools are used to create aesthetic enjoyment and laughter. You can get deeper if you wish.

 

JW: Do you consider the Jukebox as a new art form?

JJ: The idea of wiring human movement to computer output / processing is a very resonant idea that I feel can go much deeper than a juggling act, but I personally don't view my juggling as art. It is certainly a creative process, but to me art must get more at the soul than juggling is capable of - although I should say that there are a few jugglers that I would consider artists in the strict sense of the term.

 

JW: Do you have any specific jugglers in mind?

JJ: Michael Moschen. He's the preeminent artist-juggler.

 

JW: You described juggling as a "creative" process, if not necessarily a high art. So can you describe how you develop new tricks? What is your method of developing new material for your performances?

JJ: I want to clarify what I said earlier about art. I don't want to sound like an art snob. High art is important to me, but I don't think it is inherently more valuable than anything else. I love juggling because it combines the mind and body, the literal and the abstract, and so on.

 

As far as developing new material, I would divide that process into tricks and presentation. I'm not really that creative with my tricks on a certain level. I have that one trick that I feel is original, and I have some cool combinations that I've "invented" but for the most part my juggling is pretty traditional. So I guess I just develop material by trying out different combinations.

 

I'm working on a club trick now that combines behind-the-backs with chin rolls. Every left is a back-cross and every right is a chin roll. And that combination looks nice. To me the development process is just about playing around with possibilities in a serious way. I'm really trying to make my practice time focused, too. That helps mostly in terms of technical development, but probably also in terms of developing new combinations. I believe that (and this is the conventional juggling wisdom) the area where you can really distinguish yourself is character and theater and gimmick.

 

I certainly need to concentrate on this because I'm never going to be a top-notch technical juggler. And up to this point, I've been coasting on one good idea. I have a lot of other ideas sketched out, but I never find the time to practice implementing them. I've been performing the Juggling Jukebox for three years now, and it's time to develop something new not to replace it, but to complement it. Right now I'm limited to street performing (which I love) and gigs that would normally hire strolling entertainment.

 

The idea of walkaround juggling is one of my pet peeves. I try to sell my act as a focused alternative to traditional atmosphere enter­tainment. So I would like to get together a stage show to round out my repertoire.

 

Since our interview last fall, James Jay has in fact developed and premiered a new stage show at a First Night Festival in Bloomington, Ill, performing a "concert" of juggling "songs" called "Five Movements." He explained, "The name reflects my formalist tendencies." The act included formal juggling in his trademark musical style, but also tried to integrate audience participation and choreography to exploit the ample space available on the stage (which is a change of pace since the Jukebox has always required Jay to stand in one spot).

 

"Five Movements" presents five different juggling routines, some choreographed to music and some silent. The various routines involve three, four, and five balls and three clubs. For the finale, Jay "sculpts" an audience volunteer into the Statue of Liberty and has a volunteer "band" play "The Star Spangled Banner" on kazoos. He then juggles three balls, taking his cues from the lyrics. For instance, Jay executes violent chops during the "perilous fight" and graceful weaves during "gallantly streaming."

 

In the coming months, Jay hopes to develop a pared down high-tech act that will be easier to transport and less equipment intensive (perhaps a Powerbook, sampler, and MIDI tools box). This act will focus less on music and more on sound effects and sampled speech. "I have a high-tech music act now because I was collaborating with a composer. That was great! But long-term, I'd like something that I can develop and maintain myself. Since I'm not a composer, but I do have a lot of experience with language, I am thinking about a "Laurie Anderson-esque" act that uses sampled speech almost like a cyborg stand­up comedian. I can have a mime character that 'talks' and even improvises, without saying a word!"

 

Jay is contacting agents in New York, San Francisco, and elsewhere whose work relates to his high-tech act, hoping to start performing nationally later this year. He will test his new high-tech act regionally first, but his ultimate goal is to go international. With a wider geographic reach, Jay plans to expand his relatively small, niche market. In the meantime, James Jay will continue to explore the frontier where juggling meets high-tech.

 

Bret Battey is a composer who works primarily, though not exclusively, in computer music. One specific area in which he works is called algorithmic music. In this type of computer music, input information (from a MIDI keyboard, custom-rigged instrument or juggler) is processed using probabilistic algorithms rather than a pre-established traditional score. This introduces a degree of randomness into the music, which makes each performance unique.

 

Battey studied computer music composition at Oberlin Conservatory, and recently enrolled in the University of Washington's MFA program in composition. Jay and Battey met in 1989 when they were both in New York City on arts internships. Battey was working at Philip Glass's studio and Jay was working for Agnes Denes, a conceptual / environmental artist.

 

Peter D. Mark teaches computer science at Seattle University and juggles with the Cascade Juggling Club from time to time.