Thanks Lisa for your deep understanding and sharp and constructive critique. Thanks also to Hanna for allowing me to present this paper as a work in progress. I have only a minor correction, and one response to make to your very useful blog post.
Regarding "I of IV" by Oliveros - nothing in this work auto chronic, as it is entirely improvised, using a fundamentally unstable instrument or apparatus. The key idea in this example is the cumulative effect of hooking up a particular assemblage of analog components that becomes uncontrollable in a deterministic way. The improvisor is thus not dealing with anything knowable in advance, and when Pauline Oliveros comments on this point, on this she says,
"In creating my electronic instrument with the oscillators, the huge dials that had seemed so unfriendly to performance now became receivers for the musical knowledge embodied in my hands and fingers. I had created a very unstable nonlinear music-making system: difference tones from tones set above the range of hearing manipulated by the bias frequency of the electromagnetic tape recording, feedback from a second tape machine in parallel with newly generated difference tones as I responded instantaneously with my hands on those dials to what i was hearing from the delays and as the sounds were all being recorded on magnetic tape."
The challenge of re-performing this unique piece, an acclaimed landmark in the history of live electronic music, is precisely why I chose it as a case study. Attempts to "emulate" it with digital technologies are problematic, for obvious reasons.
The major comment is about how well my notion of "diagramming intensities" can help to answer questions about the longue durée of art works, their continuation, emulation, conservation, and preservation. I won't pretend to have an easy answer to this question, since it is at the heart of what I am currently thinking about, and have not yet reached any solid conclusion I can share with you. I will say this, however: the diagrams might be better understood less as visualizations, and more as "abstract machines". By interpreting the diagrams themselves as visual notations, they become frozen, and as you say, they "display restricted scope of information from a limited perspective". I take the term abstract machine from Deleuze's book on Foucault, and there he actually does happily also use the word "intensity" in a sense that's close to what I am talking about too. "The diagram or abstract machine is the map of relations between forces, a map of destiny, or intensity, which proceeds by primary non-localizable relations and at every point passes through every point" (p. 36) I would like my diagrams to eventually be useful as tools for specifying and localizing the elements of complex temporal music-media works, such that they can be better comprehended as a map of relations. This "map" might then be of use in determining what is necessary and what is contingent, in terms of the elements that need to be considered for preservation and conservation. I would be interested to hear what you think of this derivation of the diagram and if you have advice for how it might be further developed.