Just in time: Rosemary Butcher, making memories and marks

What is at stake in the relatively recent urge to document, annotate or archive decision-making processes in creative practices? Others have posed this sort of question (not least Derrida's Archive Fever, 1995), but, ironically enough, they tend to have done so through the written text—just as we are, in part, constrained to do here. Who or what has driven the historically specific urge to document—and who has benefited from it? Writer-researchers tend to be blissfully expert in the sorts of fields that collocate around performance decision-making—not least where university researcher holds sway. Yet surely what some of us may want—almost desperately—to capture, still evades that attempt at wording? What is it that holds centre-field, while researchers run around? Besides, what does the artist or maker really want? What do researchers want from ‘the artist’ when we use the words ’document’, ‘record’, ‘annotate’ and ‘archive’? When do we want it? Plainly Butcher has made the work, but ‘the work’, here, tends to signal the history of the made, rather less than the story of the making. In historical terms, most of Butcher's making processes pre-date this urge to document—except in her own mind, which bears their marks. What does Butcher remember? Perhaps her memories are the work's archive—hence, for whom do we archive, document and annotate, and how? In Derrida, concern was with time (in the beginning, in the end), and the command (do this! do that!), whereas what Butcher seems to recall is a series of questions, for which she continues to have few answers: the apparently simple ‘What was I doing then?’ signals an ongoing enquiry that image, writing and record fail to satisfy

Just in time: ‘momentary’ events in the making of Rosemary Butcher’s signature practices

The notions of ‘ephemerality’, of time and loss, are essentially spectatorial, in the case of live performance. For the performance-maker, the work of making “the work”, over time, has never been ephemeral. Spectators’ performances and those of makers are non-identical, not least in terms of performances’ times. The ‘signature practices’ of the mature expert practitioner tend to emerge just in time, and the work is serial, a momentary instantiation in an ongoing creative enquiry, whereas spectating, in the event, mistakes its experience for “the work itself”. We propose to argue that times, the immutable and the immanent, engage with particular ways of seeing, so as to produce ‘signature practices’, in expert performance-making registers. The processes tend to be punctuated a ‘momentary instantiation’ (Knorr Cetina, 2001): the timely performance outcome that seems initially to end the enquiry, but that will reveal, to the practitioner concerned, a further set of questions to be worked through

Breaking of the overall permutation symmetry in nonlinear optical susceptibilities of one-dimensional periodic dimerized Huckel model

Based on infinite one-dimensional single-electron periodic models of trans-polyacetylene, we show analytically that the overall permutation symmetry of nonlinear optical susceptibilities is, albeit preserved in the molecular systems with only bound states, no longer generally held for the periodic systems. The overall permutation symmetry breakdown provides a fairly natural explanation to the widely observed large deviations of Kleinman symmetry for periodic systems in off-resonant regions. Physical conditions to experimentally test the overall permutation symmetry break are discussed.Comment: 7 pages, 1 figur

3,3-Dimethyl-cis-2,6-di-p-tolyl­piperidin-4-one

In the title mol­ecule, C21H25NO, the piperidine ring adopts a chair conformation. The benzene rings and one of the methyl groups attached to the piperidine ring have equatorial orientations. The dihedral angle between the two benzene rings is 72.53 (9)°. In the crystal, mol­ecules are linked by N—H⋯O hydrogen bonds. Weak C—H⋯π inter­actions involving the benzene rings are also present in the crystal structure

Dynamic Shift from Cloud Computing to Industry 4.0: Eco-Friendly Choice or Climate Change Threat

Cloud computing utilizes thousands of Cloud Data Centres (CDC) and fulfils the demand of end-users dynamically using new technologies and paradigms such as Industry 4.0 and Internet of Things (IoT). With the emergence of Industry 4.0, the quality of cloud service has increased; however, CDC consumes a large amount of energy and produces a huge quantity of carbon footprint, which is one of the major drivers of climate change. This chapter discusses the impacts of cloud developments on climate and quantifies the carbon footprint of cloud computing in a warming world. Further, the dynamic transition from cloud computing to Industry 4.0 is discussed from an eco-friendly/climate change threat perspective. Finally, open research challenges and opportunities for prospective researchers are explored

Oxomemazine hydro­chloride

In the title compound [systematic name: 3-(5,5-dioxo­phen­othia­zin-10-yl)-N,N,2-trimethyl­propanaminium chloride], C18H23N2O2S+·Cl−, the dihedral angle between the two outer aromatic rings of the phenothia­zine unit is 30.5 (2)°. In the crystal, the components are linked by N—H⋯Cl and C—H⋯Cl hydrogen bonds and C—H⋯π inter­actions

5-Acetyl-4-(2-chloro­phen­yl)-6-methyl-3,4-dihydro­pyrimidine-2(1H)-thione

In the title mol­ecule, C13H13ClN2OS, the heterocyclic ring adopts a flattened boat conformation with the plane through the four coplanar atoms making a dihedral angle of 85.6 (1)° with the benzene ring, which adopts an axial orientation. The thionyl, acetyl and methyl groups all have equatorial orientations. Inter­molecular N—H⋯O, N—H⋯S and C—H⋯S hydrogen bonds are found in the crystal structure. A weak C—H⋯π inter­action involving the benzene ring also occurs

tert-Butyl 6-methyl-2-oxo-4-[4-(trifluoro­meth­oxy)anilino]cyclo­hex-3-ene-1-carboxyl­ate

In the title compound, C19H22F3NO4, the dihedral angle between the benzene ring and the conjugated part of the enaminone ring is 42.5 (1)°. The ester substituent makes a dihedral angle of 81.3 (2)° with this latter moiety. The crystal structure is held together by strong N—H⋯O and weak C—H⋯O inter­molecular inter­actions. The enaminone ring is disordered over two orientations with relative occupancies of 0.794 (4) and 0.206 (4)

1-Formyl-r-2,c-6-bis­(4-methoxy­phen­yl)-t-3-methyl­piperidin-4-one

The asymmetric unit of the title compound, C21H23NO4, contains two crystallographically independent mol­ecules A and B. In both mol­ecules, the piperidine-4-one rings adopt a distorted twist-boat conformation. The formyl group at position 1, the methoxy­phenyl ring at position 2 and the methyl group at position 3 are attached equatorially. The meth­oxy phenyl ring at position 6 has an axial orientation. The dihedral angle between the two benzene rings is 55.27 (8)° in mol­ecule A, and 55.29 (8)° in mol­ecule B. In the crystal, the mol­ecules are linked by weak C—H⋯O inter­molecular hydrogen-bond inter­actions. In addition, weak C—H⋯π inter­molecular inter­actions involving the benzene rings at positions 6 and 2 of mol­ecule B are also found in the crystal structure